tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40185947465563508722024-02-19T06:19:39.738-08:00Werdmuller CentreWerdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4018594746556350872.post-39285508386976604322008-02-25T02:32:00.000-08:002008-02-25T02:33:00.107-08:00QuestionsWhere do we go from here ? <br /><br />What should be the plan of action ?<br /><br />Jean NuttallWerdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4018594746556350872.post-76789462673440845082008-01-28T02:59:00.000-08:002008-01-28T03:14:32.483-08:00Save the Werdmuller<strong>SAVE THE WERDMULLER<br />Letter of support for the Werdmuller campaign, submitted to the Cape Institute of Architects<br />25 January 2008</strong><br /><br />We are four London-based architects – South African Rome Scholar Suzi Hall (neé Du Toit),<br />environmental design expert and UCT graduate Quinton Pop, published author and senior architect at Penoyre and Prasad Rafael Marks, and Dr. Matthew Barac, winner of the 2007 RIBA Architectural Research Award –with links and experience of working, teaching and writing about South African architecture. As professionals and commentators established in our field, we feel it necessary to add out collective voice to the conservation campaign. News of the threat to the Werdmuller Centre has sent shock waves around the world, accompanied by a sense of disbelief that the city that nurtured South Africa’s pre-eminent architect may see fit to demolish one of his seminal works.<br /><br />We believe that the ‘Heritage Impact Assessment’ (HIA) addresses too narrow a remit, highlighting its own inadequacies rather than those of the Werdmuller Centre. By focussing solely on the commercial retail viability of the building, it sidesteps wider questions about cultural heritage, and fails to address the role of this building in historical terms, not only in South Africa but internationally too.<br /><br />There are three widely understood criteria for qualify a building as worthy of heritage status:<br />• Is it the work of a master-architect?<br />• Is it an exemplar of a style or movement?<br />• Does it have contemporary value or adaptive use?<br /><br /><strong>1. Is the work that of a Master Architect?</strong><br />The answer to this question is self-evidently yes, and the ‘heritage assessment’ acknowledges this fact. Not only did Roelof leave behind a body of important and ground-breaking work, rooted in South Africa yet international in outlook, but through his work and teaching he influenced current and future generations. We all know of Roelof’s achievements and we do not need to go into them here. However, on top of all his accolades from within the profession (including the ISAA Gold Medal) it is worth pointing out that he was recently profiled as the first of South Africa’s "Architectural Greats" in a feature series in mainstream public culture magazine Elle Decoration.<br /><br /><strong>2. Is the work an exemplar of a style or movement?</strong><br />Again the answer is yes. The HIA goes to great lengths to explain Le Corbusier’s Five Points of<br />Architecture. The Werdmuller is an exemplar of these five points, and an unmatched regional variant of an international movement that owes much to this seminal modernist treatise. The building’s spatial juxtapositions, sculptural form and urban ambitions belie its size. Its pioneering modernism places it clearly in a pantheon of international icons: Le Corbusier’s Villa Savoye, Rietveld’s Schroder House, Kahn’s Parliament Buildings in Dhaka, Niemeyer’s Brasilia and a host of other acclaimed buildings for which new uses and conservation methods have been found. The iconic status of the Werdmuller is underlined by its inclusion in the book "1001 Buildings You Must See Before You Die" (ed. Mark Irving, Quintessence Books, 2007).<br /><br /><strong>3. Does the building have contemporary value or adaptive use?</strong><br />This question is clearly the most contentious of the three criteria, yet the answer must be an unqualified yes. Let’s consider the question in two parts.<br /><br />Contemporary value The notion of value should to extended from one that understands it purely as relating to profit and commerce. The cultural value of the building cannot be underestimated it is poorly understood. Most would agree that the building is an exemplar of modernism in South Africa. No other buildings in Cape Town from the era can compete as a total piece of architecture. This in itself gives it an educational, historical and cultural value that is irreplaceable. There is also the wider urban question. While the building is considered a failure from a commercial retail perspective, its urban importance in Claremont is not to be underestimated. The Werdmuller Centre and what could be considered its sister building, the Hans Niehaus Gallery, are the only two local significant buildings of this genre (and indeed<br />two of the very few buildings that fall outside of a logic driven by commercial values.) Claremont is one of many shopping centres in Cape Town, but what distinguishes the area from other retail experiences? If it is true that the building is perhaps not appreciated by local residents and shoppers, we need to ask the question "why?" Is it because it is perceived to be bad architecture, or is it because it has been neglected over many years so that now it is seen as dilapidated and without value? This is no argument to demolish the building, more a reason to renovate, reinvent and renew.<br /><br />The presence of a modernist architectural icon should be considered a major draw card for the area rather than an impediment to profit. What could Claremont offer in terms of architectural culture that would compensate for the loss of the Werdmuller? Another bland shopping centre? This leads to the second part of the question.<br /><br /><em>Adaptive Use</em> The heritage statement, in its narrowly defined assessment of the building,<br />states categorically that the building is unusable from a commercial retail perspective and cannot be adapted to other uses. This claim quite clearly has not been tested. There are no feasibility studies to test how the building would work as something other than a shopping centre. Many fine examples of buildings given a new lease of life, by renewal, restoration and adaptation to new uses, exist. It is often in their second generation that buildings come to life. Several examples are identified by Martin Kruger in his blog (http://werdmullercentre.blogspot.com). Locally there is the reuse and adaptation of Constantia’s various winery buildings, the conversion of the Newland’s Brewery, and examples on the waterfront (where the quality of architecture is a significant factor in attracting shoppers). Farther afield, there is the Tate Modern in London, Foster’s Reichstag, Scarpa’s Castelvecchio and the Musee d’Orsay<br />in Paris. In London, the conversion of Owen Williams’ 1938 Pioneer Health Centre into private housing has been a recent success. All these buildings had fallen into states of disrepair and disuse yet through imagination and determination, they were resuscitated beyond what their original builders or owners had imagined, rejuvenating the areas around them. One only needs to think how London’s Tate Modern, a simple intervention in an old power station, has far exceeded expectations of visitor numbers and cultural as well as commercial impact, while the Reichstag is a must-see for every visitor to Berlin. These are direct results of imaginative reinventions of previously derelict buildings, and we feel that it is an obligation of the current custodian of the building to use their imaginations and the imaginations of others to test future possibilities thoroughly before writing the building off. It is not hard to imagine the<br />Werdmuller’s renewal, which could become a destination in its own right, not a route through.<br /><br /><em>The Future</em><br />The life of a building stretches many generations and it is the responsibility of each to manage, maintain and use it in a way that looks after its value for future generations. As owner and original client for the building, Old Mutual is the custodian of this artefact of South Africa’s modern culture. They have an obligation to extend the imagination of the building beyond retail use. It may seem obvious to say it but it is profoundly true: if the Werdmuller Centre is demolished, it can never be replaced. In straight commercial terms, the building is not going to realise the potential of the site as foreseen by Old Mutual. However, if the questions of value, reuse and adaptation are reframed beyond the narrow confines of the retail market, the building can be seen to have vast cultural potential. This in turn could generate commercial returns. The building is iconic and well known, and its profile and ‘brand’ provides an a priori resource, which could and should be redeemed.<br /><br />The Werdmuller Centre is not just a failed shopping centre. It is part of a public inheritance that goes beyond immediate commercial needs. It cannot be replaced because its aesthetic, its architectural achievements and its role in shaping contemporary architectural identity in South Africa makes it unique. We call on Old Mutual to reconsider their proposals for demolition, and to engage the architectural and development community in meeting the challenge of generating a new lease of life for this important and internationally admired building.<br /><br /><strong>Quinton Pop, Rafael Marks, Suzi Hall and Dr. Matthew Barac</strong><br />LondonWerdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4018594746556350872.post-46361173011499717782008-01-22T02:03:00.000-08:002008-01-22T02:55:37.798-08:00Werdmuller Centre Claremont, Cape Town<p align="left"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7kwyDdUmlDpYH-VlhaRoSc7uiTFRpf_3m6AOzwxruZA5u4lomjMdo0VhfG8AoyASb8XNGH-EJrIhuoHAz0MugXl5xYv3k6wzFJXEnjKUh7mj8AbB_TDFGhqKrf5xXgzEZ8wmLJFZhZD0O/s1600-h/Werdmuller_Ilze.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5158241279807577154" style="WIDTH: 217px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 160px" height="450" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7kwyDdUmlDpYH-VlhaRoSc7uiTFRpf_3m6AOzwxruZA5u4lomjMdo0VhfG8AoyASb8XNGH-EJrIhuoHAz0MugXl5xYv3k6wzFJXEnjKUh7mj8AbB_TDFGhqKrf5xXgzEZ8wmLJFZhZD0O/s400/Werdmuller_Ilze.JPG" width="506" border="0" /></a></p><br /><br /><p align="left"><strong>WERDMULLER CENTER CLAREMONT, CAPE TOWN</strong><br /><br />DOCUMENTING THE CAMPAIGN AGAINTS ITS DEMOLITION<br /><br /><br />Cape Town, 28 Nov - 05 December 2007<br /><br /><br /><strong>CONTENTS:<br /></strong><br /><strong>* BEGINNINGS OF AN INTEREST GROUP<br /><br />* MANIFESTO FOR DIFFERENCE – OPEN HOUSE ACHITECTURE<br /><br />* A FAILURE OF IMAGINATION – HEINRICH WOLFF<br /></strong><br /><strong>* THE MODERN HERITAGE OF<br />ROELOF UYTENBOGAARDT – GIOVANNI VIO<br /><br />* SELECTED COMMENTS FROM<br />PRACTITIONERS<br /></strong><br /><strong><u>APPENDIX</u></strong><br /><br /><strong>* READY - MADE –LORENZONASSIMBENI+GAELEN PINNOCK<br /><br />* ACT NO. 25, 1999 NATIONAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ACT, 1999<br /><br />* COPIED PETITIONS<br /></strong><br /><br /><strong>BEGINNINGS OF AN INTEREST GROUP<br /></strong><br /><br />Dear Interested member of publicThere will be a public presentation of the Heritage Impact Assessment regarding the demolition of the Werdmuller Centre on:</p><p align="left">Wednesday 05 December 2007 </p><p align="left">17h00-17h30 </p><p align="left">First floor of the Cape Institute </p><p align="left">71 Hout Street </p><p align="left">Cape Town</p><p align="left">Your support against the demolition of this building is needed at this meeting. </p><p align="left">There is also a petition that is going around which we attach - to be completed and submitted to us at our offices or at Noero Wolff's offices at 136 Buitengracht street before the meeting. </p><p align="left">Also follow this link created by Gaelen Pinnock to see pictures of the building in question.<br /><a title="http://www.gaelen.co.za/werdmuller/" href="http://www.gaelen.co.za/werdmuller/" target="_blank">www.gaelen.co.za/werdmuller/</a><br />We hope that you will all actively support for the protection of a valuable urban resource.</p><p align="left">OH team et al. Cape Town, December 2007 </p><p align="left"><br /><strong>Save the Werdmuller Center, Cape Town</strong> </p><p align="left">Facebook Group Info "Save the Werdmuller"<br /><br /><br />Type: <a title="blocked::http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=" href="http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=200000010&c1=3" target="_blank" c1="3">Organizations</a> - <a title="blocked::http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=" href="http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=200000010&c1=3&c2=45" target="_blank" c1="3&c2=">Advocacy Organizations</a><br /><br />The Werdmuller Centre is set for demolition. </p><p align="left">This building, designed by Roelof Uytenbogaardt, forms a significant part of the South African architecturallandscape. Werdmuller certainly has its faults, but it's an important building for our Architectural heritage. </p><p align="left">If it gets demolished, it will just be replaced by some large-scale commercial building. Frankly we'd much prefer a re-vamped or re-programmed Werdmuller than some bland impersonal edifice.<br />There are many viable and profitable options besides demolition. </p><p align="left">How you can help:</p><p align="left">- On Wed 5th Dec 2007, there will be a public presentation of the Heritage Impact Assessment regarding the demolition of the Werdmuller. BE THERE! See details below. </p><p align="left">- Sign a petition protesting the demolition. Download this petition form, sign it and email it to us or bring it on Wed.<br /><a title="blocked::http://www.gaelen.co.za/werdmuller.doc" href="http://www.gaelen.co.za/werdmuller.doc">http://www.gaelen.co.za/werdmuller.doc</a><br /><br />- Spread the word. Get people involved. Get people to sign the petition. We are running out of time. </p><p align="left">If we can convince council that there is a large enough interest group and enough people against its demolition, we can certainly safe Werdmuller from permanent erasure.<br /><br /><br /><br /><strong>MANIFESTO FOR DIFFERENCE - BY OPEN HOUSE ACHITECTURE</strong><br /><br />We have proven with this document that there is a rapidly growing interest group that is in favour of protecting the Werdmuller Center in Claremont Cape Town from demolition and/or thoughtless alteration.<br /><br />We believe that the Werdmuller Center is valuable because it represents the contribution South Africa has made to modern architecture.<br /><br />We believe that it is valuable to students of architecture as it is one of the few examples that illustrate South Africa’s interpretation of all of Le Corbusier’s five points of architecture:<br /><br />- the free plan (due to free-standing walls, everything is flexible)<br />- pilotis (columns which raised the building above the ground),<br />- roof garden (replacing land lost underneath the building)<br />- ribbon windows<br />- free facade (the exterior walls are no longer load-bearing)<br /><br />Furthermore the ramp system at the Werdmuller is a powerful display of the modernist idea ‘promenade architecturale’.<br /><br />We believe that with some thought and effort given to its use it can make a positive contribution to the life of the city.<br /><br />We believe the building represents an urban ideal of prioritizing the pedestrian as opposed to the automobile – an ideal that our society should not completely obliterate.<br /><br />We believe that the building represents an aesthetic that is a consequence of engaging with certain urban concerns such as connections, public trade and public shelter. </p><p align="left">We believe that in allowing this building ‘to be’ indicates that we as a society allow difference and the experimental to co-exist and contribute to the experience of the city.<br /><br />Ilze Wolff, for Open House Architecture<br /><br />04 December 2007</p><p align="left"></p><p align="left"><strong>A FAILURE OF IMAGINATION<br />- BY HEINRICH WOLFF<br /></strong><br />The Werdmuller Centre is a building of cultural significance and it would constitute a failure of imagination to break it down.<br /><br /><br /><strong>THE ACT</strong><br />The National Heritage Resources Act (1999) protects a building like the Werdmuller Centre for a number of reasons:<br /><br />1. The building displays significant aesthetic characteristics; its undulating circulation system, extraordinary sculptural forms, its rare spatial complexity and its urban generosity makes it an exceptional artistic achievement. To this list one can add the dramatic play of light across the surfaces of the building and into the deep recesses of the façades, but these light characteristics are perhaps not so evident since the building is in a poor state of repair currently.<br /><br />2. The Werdmuller Centre is highly valued by a community of people. From the petitions, letters, emails, websites, Facebook entries etc. it is clear that there is a growing group of people from all social backgrounds and all ages that are deeply concerned about the future of the Werdmuller. Many leading architects in the profession have joined the call that the building should not be destroyed and that it should be put to a better purpose. Giovanni Vio, a Venetian, with no relation to the architect, published a book on the work of Roelof Uytenbogaardt and featured the Werdmuller extensively. One can only assume that the book will increase the community of people interested in this remarkable building.<br /><br />It should be considered that all letters, petitions, emails and Facebook entries were gathered in one week. Image if we had a month….<br /><br />Most of the petitions were signed in person by people who had to drive a cross town to sign it. One of the signatories who spent a lot of his childhood at the building has said that it inspired him to become an architect.<br /><br />All over South Africa and internationally there is support for the protection of the Werdmuller.<br /><br />3. The high degree of creative achievement is evident form the masterful manipulation of space and architectural elements. The interwoven character of curved forms, its ability to break out of the orthogonal grid usually associated with concrete frame structures and the synthesis of curved and rectilinear elements are rare in the world. The exploration of many of these ideas became fashionable in Europe during the twenty first century. The Werdmuller was clearly ahead of its time.<br /><br />Formally the building is one of a kind in South Africa and therefore clearly qualifies or protection by the Act.<br /><br />4. The architecture of Roelof Uytenbogaardt is regarded internationally to be of great importance and the Werdmuller is without doubt synonymous with Uytenbogaardt. The Werdmuller Centre with the sport centre at UCT are the only two projects of his that is in this style. Uytenbogaardt is without doubt one of the top architects to have practiced in Cape Town during the twentieth century. Internationally, the work of any architect of this importance will never be demolished.<br /><br />The book by Giovanni Vio and many other publications testify to the international enthusiasm for the work of Uytenbogaardt<br /><br />Considering the above, the Werdmuller Centre clearly complies with several of the provisions of the National Heritage Resources Act. A building has to comply with only one of these to be protected in terms of the Act.<br /><br /><strong>PRECEDENT</strong><br />The problems that the owners of the Werdmuller are confronted with are not unique. The negative sense that some residents of Claremont has of the building comes as no surprise. The building is not cared for very well and in its dilapidated state people may prefer something new and clean instead of old and dirty.<br /><br />Most people agree that the building does not serve its current use very well. We must remember that 40 years ago the Castle of Good Hope did not serve its use very well at all. It was a useless military installation completely incapable of defending itself against contemporary military threat. Uselessness is therefore not the only measure of value.<br /><br />An even more notorious building of a much larger scale than that to the Werdmuller, but with similar problems of circulation and public perception is the Barbican Centre in London. I include the following extract from Wikipedia to give some background:</p><p align="left">“The Centre had a long development period, only opening long after the surrounding <a title="Barbican Estate" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican_Estate">Barbican Estate</a> housing complex had been built. It is sited on an area which was badly bombed during <a title="World War II" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II">World War II</a>.</p><p align="left">The Centre has a complex multi-level layout with numerous entrances, making circulation difficult for some. Lines painted on the ground to help would-be audience members avoid getting lost on the walkways of the <a title="Barbican Estate" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican_Estate">Barbican Housing Estate</a> en route to the Centre. The Centre's design – a concrete <a title="Ziggurat" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat">ziggurat</a> – has always been controversial and divides opinion. It was voted "London's ugliest building" in a Grey London poll in September 2003<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican_Arts_Centre#_note-1#_note-1">[3]</a>. In September 2001 the then arts minister, <a title="Tessa Blackstone" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessa_Blackstone">Tessa Blackstone</a>, announced in that the Barbican complex was to be a <a title="Grade II" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_II">Grade II</a> <a title="Listing" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listing">listed</a> building. It has been designated a site of special architectural interest for its scale, its cohesion and the ambition of the project.<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican_Arts_Centre#_note-2#_note-2">[4]</a>. A younger generation increasingly admires <a title="Chamberlin, Powell and Bon" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlin%2C_Powell_and_Bon">Chamberlin, Powell and Bon</a>, the architects' <a title="Brutalist" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist">brutalist</a> design.[<a title="Wikipedia:Citation needed" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed">citation needed</a>] This architecture practice also designed the <a title="Barbican Estate" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican_Estate">Barbican Housing Estate</a> and the nearby <a title="Golden Lane Estate" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Lane_Estate">Golden Lane Estate</a>. Project architect John Honer later worked on the <a title="British Library" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Library">British Library</a> at St Pancras – a red brick ziggurat.</p><p align="left">In the mid-1990s a cosmetic improvement scheme by Theo Crosby, of the <a title="Pentagram (design studio)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram_%28design_studio%29">Pentagram</a> design studio, added statues and decorative features reminiscent of the <a title="Arts and Crafts movement" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arts_and_Crafts_movement">Arts and Crafts movement</a>. In 2005-6, the Centre underwent a more significant refurbishment, designed by architects Allford Hall Monaghan Morris, which improved circulation and introduced bold signage in a style in keeping with the Centre's original 1970s <a title="Brutalist architecture" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture">Brutalist architecture</a>. That improvement scheme added an internal bridge linking the Silk Street foyer area with the lakeside foyer area. The Centre's Silk Street entrance, previously dominated by an access for vehicles, was modified to give better pedestrian access. The scheme included removing most of the mid-1990s embellishments.</p><p align="left">Outside, the main focal point of the Centre is the lake and its neighbouring terrace. The theatre's fly tower has been surrounded by glass and made into a spectacular high-level conservatory. The Barbican Hall's acoustic has also been controversial: some praised it as attractively warm, but others found it too dry for large-scale orchestral performance.</p><p align="left">In 1994, Chicago acoustician Larry Kirkegaard oversaw a £500,000 acoustic re-engineering of the hall "producing a perceptible improvement in echo control and sound absorption", music critic Norman Lebrecht wrote in October 2000<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican_Arts_Centre#_note-3#_note-3">[5]</a> – and returned in 2001 to rip out the stage canopy and drop adjustable acoustic reflectors, designed by Caruso St John, from the ceiling, as part of a £7.5 mn refurbishment of the hall. Barbican Centre managing director <a title="John Tusa" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tusa">John Tusa</a> wrote to Kirkegaard Associates to thank them "for doing something that many thought was not deliverable – the acoustic transformation of the Barbican Hall at a highly affordable price and in a very short time. We couldn't have asked for more."<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican_Arts_Centre#_note-4#_note-4">[6]</a> But art music magazine <a title="Gramophone (magazine)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramophone_%28magazine%29">Gramophone</a> still complained about "the relative dryness of the Barbican acoustic" in August 2007.<a title="" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican_Arts_Centre#_note-5#_note-5">[7]</a>”</p><p align="left">Anybody familiar with the Barbican before its renovation can testify to the immensity of the problem. Today the Barbican is a popular and important venue for cultural events in London.<br /><br />The parallels with the Barbican are important:<br />* It has circulation that did not serve its use well<br />* It is architectural significant and roughly dates from the same period as the Werdmuller.<br />* Its significance was had to be reconciled with its lack of popularity<br />* A younger generation of people unfamiliar with its origins have a great enthusiasm for the building<br /><br />The most significant lesson from the Barbican is that the problems are surmountable. The recent architectural intervention ranged from invisible manipulations to clearly necessary “surgery”. Great buildings like these, warts and all, are not broken down. It calls on us to amply our minds and not to pretend we cannot imagine something better.<br /><br />Heinrich Wolff<br />4 December 2007</p><p align="left"></p><p align="left"><strong>THE MODERN HERITAGE OF ROELOF UYTENBOGAARDT </strong><strong>– GIOVANNI VIO<br /></strong><br /><br />In the Werdmuller Centre we have a manifesto of the democratic city, perhaps expressed under the light of a desperate confrontation with an incontestable devolution. </p><p align="left">A humanistic city related, rooted and confirmed by it’s historical precedents like the little town of Calcata near Rome, or it’s contemporary modernist experiments like two LeCorbusier’s projects: maison Currutchet in La Plata (1949) and the MIT Carpenter centre for visual studies in Harvard (1961). </p><p align="left">The Werdmuller centre is a mixed use building, built in 1973: a sort of a commercial mall with a post office and with private offices and restaurants at the top level.</p><p align="left">This is a project that Roelof was not very keen to present to the public to the extent that it was not included among those he submitted for Space and Society’s dossier. </p><p align="left">This building, in fact, did not receive full appreciation from the critics from the very beginning. There were complaints about the abundance of communal open space compared to the amount of lettable commercial space obtained from the building, and also for the location of shops along a complicated uphill route, not too easy to use. These comments were true, if one is expecting from this project the same features and performances of the typical commercial centre: a big box with a car park around. The Werdmuller never let all its spaces, and never had very busy shops. </p><p align="left">The centre slowly lost its original appeal as a fantastic, psychedelic piece of architecture, and started running down.</p><p align="left">For many years this building has been considered a failure and recently it’s demolition was decided. </p><p align="left">The “timeless” in Roelof’s architecture has nothing to do with the success of a building. Rather it is a concept that deals with the understanding of human needs, in an ethical way and with enriching the idea of space with the spirit of the context. </p><p align="left">To create continuity between past, present and future, and so producing the timeless qualities is view of architecture requiring a wider consciousness that spreads from the scale of the building to the one of the public space, the city and the site.</p><p align="left">So in the Werdmuller centre we must understand the deep urban ideas that make the building so specific to its site. </p><p align="left">The site was on the “poor edge” of rich Claremont. The building was intended to be a bridge between the two sides. From the developer’s point of view, as described in the articles of the time, the intention was to reach a different type of shop user. From Roelof’s point of view it was an opportunity to activate an appropriate, clever urban strategy.</p><p align="left">First of all the main idea for the layout of the project is to intercept the flow of people coming from the nearby train station and minibus terminal toward the centre of Claremont. In the 70’s there were many commuters that used to enter town by public transport. New shops and public services set along this commuter route could have promoted the use of public transport more and more. For the early 70’s this idea was very innovative, almost utopian. In fact, if in those years the use of public transport, specially the train, was diffused throughout the population, despite racial differences, later, due to the apartheid’s urban policy, the use of public transport became a means of segregation and prerogative only of poor people. The face of Claremont became more and more the image of a safe precinct, accessed by cars, in which the wealthy part of the population could safely shop. The destiny of Werdmuller could only be different, at that stage.</p><p align="left">Secondly the project posed a great importance on the landscape, particularly on the beautiful view of Table Mountain. Nowadays the west elevation we see along Lower Main Road is all covered up by recently added windows and roof. Originally there was a terrace, the final point of the ascending pedestrian ramp.</p><p align="left">Now I would like to ask to the people who know Cape Town: which of buildings among the commercial area of Claremont offers this attention to the characteristics of the landscape? None, or maybe very few.</p><p align="left">I leave you to discover the other reasons that make the Werdmuller so important by reading the book.</p><p align="left">The Werdmuller is a modernist utopia. We have many of them in Europe. As architectural mistakes they do not last long as they are. Firstly they get amended, fixed with additions, changes, improvements, exactly like the owners tried to do with the Werdmuller, adding the roof to the upper terrace, or like the tenants of Le Corbusier’s houses in Pessac did closing up the loggias and building extra bits and pieces. But after this first phase of constant decay, not all of these buildings will be wrecked. </p><p align="left">Some of them, with time passing, become objects of affection; they start to belong to the place and to the people of the place where they are. This happens specially to those buildings where people are originally forced to spend it’s life in: homes. Modernist radical and experimental spaces such as the Brunswick housing blocks and commercial square in London, designed by Patrick Hodgkinson in 1970 or the 900 housing units scheme of Park Hill, built between 1957 and 1961, in Sheffield, today are object of conservative regeneration projects. Even an elevated railway might become a building worth conservation according to the locals who got used to have it and see it outside their houses’ windows for many years. I think of the High Line in New York.</p><p align="left">If the building does not belong to anyone, if it is only considered as a money machine by it’s owners, then the modernist utopia will never became one with the life of the citizens, and there will be nobody standing out to defend the building from the wrecker’s ball.</p><p align="left">This is not a good sign. </p><p align="left">If there are any new urban visions for Cape Town this project should be re-evaluated as a powerful tool for making a democratic and meaningful space.<br /><br /><strong>Giovanni Vio, architect, Venice.<br />(Lecture at UCT School of Architecture, 2007-05-04)</strong></p><p align="left"><strong></strong></p><p align="left"><strong>SELECTED COMMENTS FROM PRACTITIONERS</strong><br /><br />The Werdmuller Centre is many things, but most importantly it is a beautiful piece of Architecture and a very important part of the Architectural landscape of Cape Town. It must be preserved, restored and its use re-invented. It has and should always be there to be used as a reference by students and practitioners of Architecture, and all those who care about Design.<br /><strong>Simone le Grange, architect, South Africa.</strong><br /></p><p align="left">Roeloff’s work was contextual, exploratory, conceptually imaginative and competent at all levels. To lose such a poetic building founded on the humanist tradition of accessible and evocative space making is more than a pity but a travesty! It demonstrates in full clarity a crisis of values within the profession and the built environment.<br />Let’s convert the building into a museum of south African architecture, with offices and conference space for architects and make that building a real part of the city, instead of lifeless acontextual pseudo middleclass high rise dwellings that are doomed to be immemorable. If the museum won’t work, I propose a rebel school of architecture to evangelize for quality in the public realm.<br /><strong>Mokena Makeka, architect, South Africa.</strong><br /></p><p align="left">Herein lays an excellent example of a building that has been relegated to the basement of public memory. The building is greatly valuable in that, in a sense, without containing a single ornament, it is in itself a museum to South African Modernist Architecture.<br /><strong>Lorenzo Nassimbeni, architect, South Africa.</strong><br /></p><p align="left">What are they planning to replace it with?<br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=100000080&id=878415310"><strong>Timb Curtis</strong></a><strong>, London</strong></p><p align="left"><br />Anything he built being destroyed is sheer murder<br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=100000080&id=516663673"><strong>Renee Rossouw</strong></a><strong>, South Africa</strong><br /><br />Well, I mightn't have thought I'd say it when I was younger, but more fuck-off faceless Sandtonization would be a great shame. The Werdmuller Centre is about the only interesting thing in Claremont.<br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=100000080&id=587547126"><strong>James Duncan</strong></a><strong>, commissioning editor, London.</strong><br /><br />If we, as a society, demolish our mistakes, how will our youth learn?<br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=100000080&id=614646676"><strong>Edward Van Kuik</strong></a><strong>, South Africa.</strong><br /><br />As a modernist myself I was always fascinated by that statuesque & bold form. I think it should be saved for the sake of modern history in this country. Go Go Go!<br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/s.php?k=100000080&id=618871396"><strong>Bobo Motha</strong></a><strong>, Architect, Johannesburg.</strong><br /><br />If the programme of the Werdmuller Center was re-appraised so as to facilitate a different use, it could survive as an exemplary piece of modernist architecture. Permeable and accessible, the building promotes openness to the street, and it fosters human interaction. Aren’t they the same values we are looking for to find in the buildings for the 21st century in Cape Town? The Werdmuller showed this sensitivity 25 years in advance. Why demolish it?<br /><strong>César Besada, architect & urban planner, Spain.<br /></strong><br />I am not sure on your thoughts on the Werdmuller (as many are varied!), but from what has been going up around Claremont Main Road, we feel that it is one important building that not only has heritage value but also has the potential for a cultural core - the demolition would just replace this with more exclusive housing apartments out of the reach of the general public…<br /><strong>Kathryn Ewing, architect, South Africa.<br /></strong><br />I'm a UCT Archi school graduate (1994) and Roelof was my Professor. I love the Werdmuller. No-one designs shopping centers like that. It's a great place to get lost, but the relationship between inside and outside is unique. It would be a fantastic cultural center. The only significant building on Claremont Main road.<br /><strong>Simon le Roux, architect, Finland.</strong><br /><br />Now I would like to ask to the people who know Cape Town: which of buildings among the commercial area of Claremont offers this attention to the characteristics of the landscape? No one, or maybe very few.<br /><strong>Giovanni Vio, architect, Venice.</strong><br /><br />The Werdmuller’s demolition threat is not a new attitude.</p><p align="left">It’s a sad attitude that shows incompetence and lack of imagination from Old Mutual’s advisors.</p><p align="left">It’s an insensitive attitude that will destroy one of the last interestingexamples of architecture in that area, whose architectonic and urbanlevels of quality are decreasing with every new finished intervention.</p><p align="left">What the Werdmuller needs is a re-conceptualization, by resolving itsinadequacies with full conscience and respect for its qualities and uniqueness. </p><p align="left">What the Werdmuller needs is a fresh look, away from old arguments,personal motivations or cold indifference.</p><p align="left">What the Werdmuller needs is this demonstration of people who show care and interest. </p><p align="left">This demonstration alone should be reason enough not to destroy it.</p><p align="left">This demonstration alone is not enough to make it work,but it’s a start…</p><p align="left"><strong>Uno de Lemos Marques Pereira, architect</strong></p><p align="left">December 2007<br /></p><p align="left"><br /><strong>about the DEMOLITION of the WERDMULLER CENTRE in CLAREMONT<br />Ricardo Sá<br /></strong><br />I think the demolition of the Werdmuller Centre shows the following:<br /><br />Ignorance…<br />of the Architectural value of the building…<br />of its form and of the oeuvre of a magnificent architect.<br />Ignorance…<br />of the History of the country…<br />by neglecting the positive ideals and vision of the South African Modern movement of arts.<br /><br />Lack of Creativity…<br />in seeing the possibility of changing the building’s use,<br />to turn the building into an icon, into a destination (arts centre, arts museum, police station, etc) that Claremont might need and in general the city of Cape Town,<br />of the owner by underestimating a community to revamp a present dysfunctional space.<br /><br />One sided Investment opportunity – Money…<br />by a Investment Company that I believe knows better.</p><p align="left">This is a good chance for investment in Culture and in Arts…<br />and a chance to turn the building into a culture and commercial precinct as part of Claremont’s consolidated residential area.<br /><br />By demolishing the Werdmuller Centre, Old Mutual is not embracing diversity but only Conformity.<br /><br /><strong>Ricardo Sá, architect</strong></p><p align="left"><strong></strong></p>Werdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4018594746556350872.post-48505087971382760792008-01-21T23:10:00.000-08:002008-01-21T23:16:42.251-08:00The Proposed Demolition of the Werdmuller Centre: Some Further Information and Comments<strong>The Proposed Demolition of the Werdmuller Centre: Some Further Information and Comment</strong><br />Fabio Todeschini Monday, January 21st, 2008<br /><br /><strong>Introduction<br /></strong>I refer to the contribution made on the 14th January 2008. Having reflected on the matter and having been advised of some aspects relating to an offer to purchase the property from the Old Mutual some years ago, I wish to add as follows.<br /><br /><strong>Additions to the Core of the Matter</strong><br />I propose to ask what seem to me to be some more pivotal questions and to answer them to the best of my understanding, as follows.<br /><br /><em>Was the Werdmuller Centre a well resolved development brief in financial terms?</em> With the benefit of hindsight, the evidence suggests that, over the period that The Old Mutual appointed Roelof Uytenbogaardt to develop plans and their land-holdings for the project continued to expand as proposals were framed therefore, Claremont tended increasingly to be overtraded in the retail sector, particularly as it related to goods and services for the lower income group. Consequently, no amount of ingenuity would have rendered the proposition a financial success. This in particular because the site was located to the east of the Main Road and, in contrast to Cavendish Square shopping centre located to the west of the Main Road, it had to mainly cater to a lower income group. This is borne out by the inability of The Old Mutual to attract an anchor tenant for the easterly portion of the expanded building, which therefore, had to be limited to small shops and offices.<br /><br /><em>Why was so little parking provided in the Werdmuller Centre?</em> In the context of most of the development being targeted at lower-income shopping, it was agreed with The Old Mutual that a minimum of parking should be provided.<br /><br /><em>Were alterations made to the Werdmuller Centre by The Old Mutual over the years sympathetic?</em> The alterations made were clearly not sympathetic.<br /><br /><em>Did The Old Mutual maintain the Werdmuller Centre appropriately over the years?</em> Clearly not.<br /><br /><em>Have offers to purchase the Werdmuller Centre been made to The Old Mutual in recent years?</em> I was advised by a Director of Equity Investments last week that they did make an offer some two years ago but that The Old Mutual was not prepared to entertain it, irrespective of the sum involved. Perhaps other offers were also made.<br /><br /><strong>Interim Conclusion</strong><br />Having not been very good from the beginning with neither the brief nor management of the development of the Werdmuller Centre, it would seem that The Old Mutual see in the new planning framework for Claremont a way to recoup all their losses on the project with a far larger development. They appear to be intent on total demolition of the Werdmuller Centre as a way to achieve this. The Draft HIA is silent on a number of matters, including some raised in this document and that dated 14th January 2008. Is it possible that the HIA is not entirely impartial and in the public interest and that it tends to be ‘apologist’ and even ‘advocating’ re-development?Werdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4018594746556350872.post-83864562705697623112008-01-16T01:32:00.000-08:002008-01-16T01:53:23.956-08:00The Werdmuller Centre Main Road Claremont<div><div><div><div><div><strong>THE WERDMULLER CENTRE MAIN ROAD CLAREMONT</strong><br /><br /><br /><strong>ARCHITECT:</strong> THE LATE PROFESSOR ROELOF UYTENBOGAARDT<br />ISAA GOLD MEDALIST<br />ARCHITECT AND URBAN DESIGNER<br />DISTINGUISHED TEACHER<br /><br /><br />The Werdmuller Centre, which was developed by Old Mutual Properties, designed by Roelof Uytenbogaardt in the late sixties and completed in 1976, is a fine example of modernist architecture in Cape Town.<br /><br />The late Roelof Uytenbogaardt was an inspirational teacher and award-winning architect, with the undoubted talent of a master of architecture.<br /><br />Over the years, Uytenbogaardt’s visionary philosophy and innovative approach to the design of buildings and cities have inspired many students and practicing architects. Many of them – inspired by the work of Uytenbogaardt – have now too delivered work of excellence.<br /><br />The work is seen as part of Le Corbusier-inspired architecture, which is exemplified by the concrete work done in Cape Town and South Africa by, amongst others, Tony de Sousa Santos and Adele Naude Santos (Rowan Road Townhouses and Block of Flats on the Main Road), Revel Fox (Educational Building, UCT Upper Campus) and Munnik, Visser Black and Fish (Lesley Building, UCT Upper Campus). The work of Wilhelm Meyer in Gauteng – the Rand Afrikaans University – are also seen to be part of a South African modernist legacy. </div><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs8J_8DqLQg864hJXx5b1QWc9i87yCQi-cSN9nL-dc8zVfZabXBSZFbE3eHjqCD19KR8435VAAvkNArDkKTCbIzSVze2_Ney6WpJZwrRYx2NLAGu1-uvBejS6ScYe3FSjBoTI7Rhiu35ZD/s1600-h/MK_Second+Floor+Layout.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5156009314152864818" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjs8J_8DqLQg864hJXx5b1QWc9i87yCQi-cSN9nL-dc8zVfZabXBSZFbE3eHjqCD19KR8435VAAvkNArDkKTCbIzSVze2_Ney6WpJZwrRYx2NLAGu1-uvBejS6ScYe3FSjBoTI7Rhiu35ZD/s400/MK_Second+Floor+Layout.JPG" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><div>Second Floor Layout: Werdmuller Centre (Giovanni Vio, Roelof Uytenbogaardt Timeless: October 2006, Il Poligrafo, Padua)<br /><br />Work has also been completed elsewhere in the world that was similarly inspired by Le Corbusier. These include work by the Pritzker prizewinner Richard Meier (United Sates), the RIBA Gold Medalist Charles Correa (India), Balkrishna Doshi (India), Mario Botta (Switzerland and Italy) and Rem Koolhaas (the Netherlands, earlier work).<br /><br />Le Corbusier was the most influential architect and named The Architect of the 20th Century. Roelof Uytenbogaardt was voted the Architect of the 20th Century in South Africa.<br /><br />A building of Aalvar Aalto or Le Corbusier would nowhere in the civilised world be threatened with demolition. In fact, some projects by famous architects often only get completed after they have passed away – notably Le Corbusier’s Fermini Church and Gaudi’s Sagrada Familia in Barcelona. </div><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFr0_gh75ad1pDh_6E2BPerPdqvsEQEFcWs9Mi_OH4GrewVxc4hnRKEtGyY2GMLe6QbdnBva4oSD-dahkpiHpGLWMVQmlNll7rHrjG2BNXFp1HFhRnFhzJZMlhjHqPyMzUXhnDLr8Km-23/s1600-h/MK_pg+2.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5156008291950648322" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFr0_gh75ad1pDh_6E2BPerPdqvsEQEFcWs9Mi_OH4GrewVxc4hnRKEtGyY2GMLe6QbdnBva4oSD-dahkpiHpGLWMVQmlNll7rHrjG2BNXFp1HFhRnFhzJZMlhjHqPyMzUXhnDLr8Km-23/s400/MK_pg+2.JPG" border="0" /></a></div><br /><div></div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8j8k_Ncjrgq97LppyBc_sjVt-nhsN8zDTChhBH4v8doKM_t0ityKvyLTtm60O60YPfIc08zMe3iBs8S_96VJe4TDl8U5rurEO_L97avouBk23PAhlZHKfohjDwzrvnM-kMG1veQg0xO7d/s1600-h/MK_pg+2_drawing+2.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5156008528173849618" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8j8k_Ncjrgq97LppyBc_sjVt-nhsN8zDTChhBH4v8doKM_t0ityKvyLTtm60O60YPfIc08zMe3iBs8S_96VJe4TDl8U5rurEO_L97avouBk23PAhlZHKfohjDwzrvnM-kMG1veQg0xO7d/s400/MK_pg+2_drawing+2.JPG" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Le Corbusier: Carpenter Centre, Harvard (Ching, p.274)<br /><br />The University of Cape Town’s Sport Centre and the Werdmuller Building were designed at the same time and have a similarity of language and formal expression. These were both seemingly inspired by the Carpenter Centre (United States) and Ahmedabad (India) projects by Le Corbusier.<br /><br />The Werdmuller Centre and some of the cited examples share Le Corbusier’s five principles of architectural design, which is the basis of modernist architectural thinking:<br /><br />1. The free plan<br />2. Pilotis (circular columns)<br />3. The free elevation<br />4. Roof garden<br />5. The horizontal windows<br /><br />The ramp idea of the Carpenter Centre has been exploited and the notion of the ramp as an expression of movement improved – some architects believe – at the Werdmuller Centre. </div><div><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMQxIgaTFydH7wEyTHnDVMEN6lITCh_aA3a0w9qXwFDHkXeJ5u4OzCM667qQqHO8KRu289SLYOOMkBWbbFlyr6cMEMk0cy6FOHfrrPqV7Rlj9N1ecoO-isIz8ebh9JvB1Bkc6SMuWGiars/s1600-h/MK_pg3.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5156008888951102498" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMQxIgaTFydH7wEyTHnDVMEN6lITCh_aA3a0w9qXwFDHkXeJ5u4OzCM667qQqHO8KRu289SLYOOMkBWbbFlyr6cMEMk0cy6FOHfrrPqV7Rlj9N1ecoO-isIz8ebh9JvB1Bkc6SMuWGiars/s400/MK_pg3.JPG" border="0" /></a><br />Ramps and free Form: Werdmuller Centre Vio, 2006)<br /><br />Roelof Uytenbogaardt was assisted in his design studio in the mid-sixties by Fabio Todeschini (later his colleague and professor at UCT), Peter Schneider and Ian Macaskill. Piet Louw, now a practicing architect in Cape Town just matriculated and worked on the model of the building during 1970. The work was executed on site under the name of Uytenbogaardt Schneider Macaskill Architects.<br /><br />The work was inspirational as a new building and has always been at the centre of architectural debate in Cape Town. The architectural and spatial features are:<br /><br />* The vertical and horizontal expression of sculptural form (at many levels)<br />* The idea of building-as-city<br />* The robustness and bold expression of the building<br />* The many facets and layers enrich the spatial experience (ramps, roof top activity, the linking sky bridges, free form).<br /><br />We believe that this building is a modernist architectural masterpiece, which should for that reason be preserved for future generations. In our architectural history, it is a building that compares with the significance of others elsewhere such as the Villa Savoye outside Paris and Schroder House, Utrecht.<br /><br />Over the years, the Werdmuller Centre has seemingly fallen into a state of neglect, due to no or little maintenance. Some people hate it. Others love the sensuous forms, the clear legible circulation and the light penetration and exploitation of the roof terrace. Much of the negativity has to do with the negative visual impact of signage that was not controlled and the maintenance on the building. The Pompidou Centre (with now an average of 6 million visitors annually) and the Eiffel Tower in Paris, initially sparked similar public debate.<br /><br />In Claremont, the recently constructed Hans Niehaus Gallery designed by Uytenbogaardt’s partner, Norbert Rozendal and antique shop is another example of the type of architecture that Roelof Uytenbogaardt and his partners have subscribed to. It may well be a good example to look at to improve the current Werdmuller Centre through re-use and renewal as the finishes with the use of timber, contrasted with the concrete are more successful.<br /><br /><strong>Re-use of buildings<br /></strong>The re-use of historical architecture have many fine examples of buildings given a new lease on life, by renewal and restoration, and selectively adding and sometimes demolishing parts.<br /><br />In South Africa, the work by Uytenbogaardt’s contemporary Gabriel Fagan at Boschendal, Groot Constantia, Klein Constantia, the Newlands Breweries Visitor’s Centre, as well as the work by Revel Fox at Groot Constantia, the GSB School in the Breakwater Lodge, as well as John Rennie’s conversion of SAHRA’s Offices in Harrington Street are fine Cape examples.<br /><br />Internationally, the work of Carlo Scarpa (Castelvecchio), the Tate Modern (Herzog and de Meuron), Foster’s Reichstag Complex in Berlin and Sverre Fenn’s Heidmark Museum in Norway, the conversion of the Museum d’Orsay and the Louvres, and Giancarlo de Carlo’s addition to the Il Magistero convent (Urbino) are some of the fine examples of new and old integrated into a wonderful new work of architecture.<br /><br />The Werdmuller Centre is a fine piece of architecture and very urbane. It is an example of modernist architecture that should be preserved as future heritage. Students of architecture and scholars should be able to view and enjoy the building. It holds lessons for architecture of a public scale. It failed as a shopping centre, but could be converted into another use.<br /><br />In the words of the great Italian architect and urbanist, Victorio Gregotti:<br /><br /><strong>The worst enemy of modern architecture is the idea of space considered solely in terms of its economic and technical exigencies…” (Gregotti, addressing the Architectural League- New York, 1983)</strong><br /><br />Martin Kruger<br />Architect Urbanist<br /><br />5th December 2007 </div></div></div></div></div>Werdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4018594746556350872.post-23565913173301663352008-01-16T00:23:00.001-08:002008-01-16T00:31:21.632-08:00The Werdmuller Centre: Seeking the Souk<strong>The Werdmuller Centre : Seeking the Souk</strong><br /><br /><strong>The Visit</strong><br />On the Thursday after the Werdmuller presentation, I visited Claremont at lunch time to do some shopping and visit the Werdmuller Centre which I hadn’t been to for many years. Cavendish and the revamped Link and interspace were crowded and buzzing with throngs of Christmas shoppers enjoying the range of merchandising opportunities in a contemporary up-market bazaar-like atmosphere. The Main Road too was crowded with pavement shoppers but the Werdmuller was empty.<br /><br />It was like entering a ghost town - a very unsettling experience which caused one to recall the heady days of Sea Street in the late sixties and early seventies with Roelof and the Santos’ in full cry. Roelof had then moved from his Kahnian into his Corbusian period. Werdmuller and the UCT sports Centre were to be the two major works of this period but both created great public controversy - the Sports Centre for aesthetic reasons and Werdmuller for both aesthetic and operational reasons.<br /><br />Werdmuller went through a difficult gestation period with the back [station] portion being added during documentation. The two were never really knitted together and the notion the important route [‘souk’ ?] linking Claremont Station to Main Road never realised. The viability of the scheme was also never realised with shops being a commercial failure and only the east facing offices something of a success.<br /><br />Today the building is even more illegible than before and this labyrinthine quality has been exacerbated by disruptive ad hoc alterations. It is clearly an unloved - and uncared for - building with a scary and noisome environment. Believe me, it is nothing like the collage of images in the Institute Notice nor in the recent monograph on Roelof by Giovanni Vio.<br /><br /><strong>The Vitruvian Imperative</strong><br />In short, it is an architectural failure and even embarrassment. So why is it that so many architects feel passionately about preserving it?<br /><br />In trying to understand this I recalled the Vitruvian founding architectural principles of firmness, commodity and delight which underlie other more abstract values such as time/space, space/place and place/perception.<br /><br />The building appears to be structurally sound although suffering from years of neglect on part of the owners. It still has fragments of architectonic delight, particularly in the stair wells and the entrance to the old Post Office. But it never has had commodity as witnessed by the lack of financial viability, the rapid turnover of tenants, the desperate ad hoc alterations and its current state of near dereliction.<br /><br />To my mind a building which does not meet all three Vitruvian imperatives in some measure - and this varies from building type to building type - is not a complete work of architecture. Werdmuller is not a complete work of architecture although it had, and still has to some extent, fragments which make it an architectonic tour de force, but it is a husk which needs some life breathed into it.<br /><br /><strong>Commerce and Culture</strong><br />The presentation and subsequent discussion at the Institute identified the issues very clearly. On the one hand, we have a building which is not a viable commercial proposition - under bulk, minimal parking, unsuitable for commercial activity, no anchor tenant and needing major maintenance - and is a wasting asset on a prime site in a developing Claremont.<br /><br />On the other hand, we have a building which is highly regarded by the architectural cognoscente, authored by an architect who some consider to be the foremost South African architect of last century. A building, which speakers stated, was a contribution to South Africa at an architectural, cultural and even social level [the latter being difficult to understand in view of its almost universal rejection by users and public]. It was noted that no one would consider demolition of a 20th century masterpiece in a civilised country. Would we consider the demolition of a Baker building?<br /><br />Steve Townsend summed up the discussion by noting that the property owners had the right to demolish and that no one could stop this taking place unless the heritage value of the building could be established beyond doubt. My understanding of this is that the heritage would have to be powerfully motivated at an architectural - not architectonic- level. In other words the building would have to be a viable commodity. It would have to have a use.<br /><br />No amount of preaching about architectonic qualities will do it. No amount of accusing the demolishers as philistines will do it. And certainly, no amount of bluster will do it.<br /><br />The challenge, therefore, is to propose a viable alternate use for the building. Roelof’s architectural faithful, and there are many, will have to put their architectural money where their mouths are.<br /><br />A viable alternative will depend on an anchor activity. Stadium on Main - an architectonic disaster - was rescued by a gym/sports/recreational facility as anchor. Others will know better than I, what would be an appropriate anchor activity for Werdmuller but it seems that Claremont is singularly without a cultural, educational or entertainment hub, a museum of some type, an IT resource hub with high end computing and media facilities or a fun palace surrounded by studio/office/apartments, boutique shops and eateries.<br /><br />What about a Museum of the Environmental Culture of the Western Cape [MECWES]? We live in a very special region ranging from its geomorphology and flora to the agricultural, horticultural and architectural transformations which have taken place over the years.. A natural, agricultural, viticultural, urban and architectural museum looking backward and forward would be a perfect venue for all the debates we are going to have in dealing with local problems of urban development, transportation and poverty and at the same time conserving and sustaining our environment as part of an African and world wide attempt to arrest climate change.<br /><br />Make no mistake, it would require major architectural interventions in order to make it into a viable work of architecture. In this endeavour those involved should be mindful of Ed Bacon’s principle of the Second Man, for [to paraphrase him] it is he [they] who will determine whether the seeds inherent in the original work will grow to their full potential or wither away.<br /><br />A radical intervention will be required to realise this potential but please, let it be more sensitive than what Foster has recently done to Candilis, Josic and Woods’ Berlin Free University, where big Norman, like Captain Marvel, has landed his space ship in the middle of the complex taking out 6 courtyards and seriously affecting both the building form and delicate web like structure of this icon of the sixties.<br /><br />Julian Elliott<br />Cape Town; December 10, 2007<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7RskVOCuERvnmFYSZcRWJhjX4XJZR_Hx7ole8IaPt7G8Qn9-rjyKRCRhwCf0lQl-tUTpJvD-TzT4x7vci6YZAfQ4W5n7wwQeDPSH0WBsWrkI-qL3sQmMLutDlTMfUdfL-vO4XjEBrXOF9/s1600-h/foster_berlin.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5155987414114622434" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7RskVOCuERvnmFYSZcRWJhjX4XJZR_Hx7ole8IaPt7G8Qn9-rjyKRCRhwCf0lQl-tUTpJvD-TzT4x7vci6YZAfQ4W5n7wwQeDPSH0WBsWrkI-qL3sQmMLutDlTMfUdfL-vO4XjEBrXOF9/s400/foster_berlin.jpg" border="0" /></a>Werdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4018594746556350872.post-44081296844266176382008-01-15T00:39:00.000-08:002008-01-15T00:45:17.660-08:00The Proposed Demolition of the Werdmuller Centre: Some Information and Comments<p><strong>The Proposed Demolition of the Werdmuller Centre: Some Information and Comment<br /></strong>Fabio Todeschini Monday, January 14th, 2008<br /><br /><strong>Introduction</strong><br />At the outset, I have to declare that this contribution to the professional debate about the future of the Werdmuller Centre is offered in the context of two personal connections to the building:<br /><br />* to the best of my recollection, I worked full-time in Roelof’s office from July 1965 till January 1972, obviously on many projects, one of them being the Werdmuller Centre, to which I dedicated about 3 years of my life;<br />* years later, I was a principal in the firm Todeschini and Japha, who prepared a heritage survey (then known as a conservation study) of the area in which the Werdmuller Centre is situated, commissioned by the city.<br /><br />I also have to record that I was overseas at the time of the public presentation of the Draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) of the proposed demolition held in December last; otherwise I would have participated in discussions then. Having missed the presentation and having only obtained copy of the HIA today, my contribution can not really be properly informed by the presentation since I do not have that background. Yet, as is common to all of us, and as an architect, city planner, urban designer and heritage practitioner, my purpose is here to make some contribution to this high profile debate occurring within the professions.<br /><br /><strong>The Core of the Matter<br /></strong>I believe that the matter is complex, although I imagine that if Roelof Uytenbogaardt were among us today he would support demolition of the building; just as I remember Louis Kahn supporting demolition of one of his earlier buildings in Philadelphia in 1973-74, when I was studying there, saying that its time had come, or words to that effect.<br /><br />But I am getting ahead of myself. I propose to ask what seem to me to be the pivotal questions and to answer them to the best of my understanding, as follows.<br /><br /><em>Is the Werdmuller Centre significant in the history of the development of contemporary architecture at the Cape and nationally?</em> The answer has to be yes because all the evidence points in that direction. The work was that of a young master searching for and finding his way via some imitation and elaboration, just as Palladio did at an equivalent time in his life in many projects in and about Vicenza and Venice.<br /><br /><em>Should the Werdmuller Centre have appeared amongst the list of significant buildings in the Todeschini and Japha conservation study of 1994?</em> The answer has to be yes in my view, because of the evidence. <em>Why did it not so appear?</em> Simply because I thought it should but my partner Vivienne Japha was not convinced of this (note that Derek Japha was not part of the team on this job). In the context of my having worked on the Werdmuller Centre for years, I did not think it appropriate that I should go to great lengths in persuading my colleague as to the correctness of my point of view.<br /><br /><em>Was the Werdmuller Centre ever a well resolved building across functional, tectonic, formal, security and financial realms?</em> There are many sub-questions here, many debatable today as they were debated at length even when I was in Roelof’s office as a team member on the job for years. While Roelof was the master, I recall many discussions and even disagreements (some very heated) about how to realise the fundamental idea of a ‘bazaar of shops’, with which we all agreed. This particularly in a context of a seemingly endless expansion of the very site for the building, as the Old Mutual progressively continued to purchase adjacent sites as the months and years went by. At stages, working drawings were virtually complete and additional sites were made available to the project. Even a veritable magician would have been hard pressed to take some parts as given and try and remodel the balance into a coherent whole. Moreover, because the theoretically attainable bulk kept on increasing virtually exponentially, as sites were added seriatim over time to the original narrow core site that bounded Newry Street with only a small frontage onto Main Road (not including the north west corner of the present building)―yet total redesign was ruled out of court as time progressed―, so the gap between attainable bulk and the legal maximum kept widening disconcertingly. It is obvious from Stuart Finlay’s report referred to in the HIA that the client was not really clear on what they were asking, was unsuccessful in getting an anchor tenant for the easterly portion of the expanded building and did their sums way too late.<br /><br /><em>Is it in the interests of the Old Mutual, of the Claremont CID, of Peter de Tolly (who has been acting as a consultant to the CID for some years) and of DHK Architects to have the building demolished?</em> Yes, absolutely so. The Old Mutual and its shareholders are sitting with a very valuable site and a very badly altered and poorly maintained building which is not paying its way. The revamped and beefed-up (too beefed-up with its arguably horrendous by-pass boulevard?) plan for central Claremont are changing the context to such an extent that the Werdmuller Centre has been painted into the convenient historic corner of an unloved, unwanted, passé and far too small a surviving ‘dinosaur’ from an age gone by, when demolition could deliver an ‘unencumbered site’ ripe for a new and much larger and more profitable beast.<br /><br /><em>Is it in the interest of the professions of architecture, planning and urban design to have the building demolished?</em> I am not at all sure that the loss of memory would be salutary. Many in the professions of architecture and urban design, particularly, seem to agree, for different reasons perhaps, but probably bound-up with the reality that the building was authored by a master whose work is notable and memory dear.<br /><br /><em>Is it in the public interest to have the building demolished?</em> This is, of course, the central question. Undeniably, most of the vast public did not, and do not, like the building, ever; although it had and has its aficionados beyond architects.<br /><br /><strong>Interim Conclusion</strong><br />I note that colleagues Julian Elliott, Dave Dewar and Piet Louw have argued in their submissions that a creative way to retain at least part of the physical fabric and the memory of the Werdmuller Centre should be pursued. I agree. I think the notion should be explored and the CIA should try and facilitate this. Because I have been overseas and have only today applied my mind to the matter, I reserve the right to further comment on the HIA in due course.</p>Werdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4018594746556350872.post-47296825211858667682007-12-19T00:40:00.000-08:002007-12-19T00:42:06.978-08:00Photographs by Gaelen Pinnock - Werdmuller<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMNWMkmorSxPRbBer4uXY94MPMHjDMaOl4C-bvVLvTEYdOKKonS0M1iepLTkT8diH970J1RNY0nJHgZFpD13V4_u5k1ZPNYpyqSjqqFWr0kMshmcHjaFl4zQL0aT7oO3khEXutEhW0C-pE/s1600-h/Werdmuller.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5145601281249762226" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 390px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 330px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="313" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMNWMkmorSxPRbBer4uXY94MPMHjDMaOl4C-bvVLvTEYdOKKonS0M1iepLTkT8diH970J1RNY0nJHgZFpD13V4_u5k1ZPNYpyqSjqqFWr0kMshmcHjaFl4zQL0aT7oO3khEXutEhW0C-pE/s320/Werdmuller.JPG" width="384" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div>Werdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4018594746556350872.post-48632623916509402562007-12-19T00:35:00.000-08:002007-12-19T00:36:52.162-08:0017/12/2007 E-mail received from Merry Dewar for Dave & PietThe Proposed Demolition of Werdmuller Centre, Claremont<br /><br />David Dewar<br />Piet Louw<br /><br /><br /><br />We wish to place on record the following comments in relation to the proposed demolition of Werdmuller Centre. We must emphasize that the remarks are based on the presentation given by the heritage impact consultants. We have not yet had access to the consultants’ report. The comments relate both to process and substantive issues.<br /><br />1 Process Issues<br /><br />1.1 The Act requires that the heritage decision-making authorities consider both the interests of the developers (private interests) and the public (public interest issues). Clearly, however, in a heritage situation, it is necessary to act conservatively: greater weight should be given to public interest issues. In the presentation by the consultants, the entire presentation was about private interests of the developer. Public interest issues were almost entirely ignored. In this sense, the presentation of the case was biased.<br /><br />1.2 In architectural heritage issues, the debate cannot be reduced to an “I like/I don’t like” level. There will always be voices on both sides. The so-called opinion survey, therefore, is methodologically absurd. It has no value whatsoever.<br /><br />1.3 It is not valid to use arguments about the condition of the building as a case for demolition. It is the developers who have allowed the deterioration to occur. In terms of the Slums Act, they can be forced to make good.<br /><br />1.4 We believe that the fact that one of the consultants also operates as a consultant to the Claremont City Improvement District, a primarily commercially-oriented body, represents a potential conflict of interest.<br /><br /><br />2 Substantive Issues<br /><br />We believe that any heritage assessment must objectively consider four issues:<br /><br />2.1 Is the building significant in the architectural history of the country?<br /><br />We believe that it is. In terms of materiality, it is one of a typology of important modernist buildings which included work which emerged from the offices of architects such as Uytenbogaardt, Revel Fox, Tony and Adele de Sousa Santos, and Munnik, Visser, Black and Fish at that time. Uytenbogaardt was a recognized leader of this genre.<br /><br />There are other indicators of its architectural importance.<br /><br />It has been an important part of the educational syllabus of architectural students in the region (and indeed the country) for decades. It is widely visited by architects.<br /><br />Many of the ideas and concerns reflected in the building have been incorporated into, and have informed, the work of others.<br /><br />Uytenbogaardt, generally, is recognized as a master of South African architecture and the Werdmuller Centre is an important part of his portfolio of buildings.<br /><br />2.2 Is it an important part of the social history of South Africa?<br /><br />We believe that it is. Uytenbogaardt was one of the few architects of the 1970’s who were consciously seeking to combat the exclusionary policies of apartheid, which sought to remove people of colour from places of economic opportunity. A central idea behind the Werdmuller Centre was to create a ‘souk’ for micro-businesses between the generator of the station and the Main Road. The building was explicitly challenging the exclusionary American model of ‘big box’ shopping centres such as Cavendish Square.<br /><br />2.3 Is it an important part of the cultural landscape of Cape Town?<br /><br />We believe that it is. Very few important international architects who come to Cape Town do not visit it, and many compare it favourably with other buildings of the genre internationally.<br /><br />2.4 Is it an important part of the urban history of South Africa? <br /><br />We believe that it is. The building is an intensely urban one. It attempted to deal with a number of central concerns which were not part of the modernist architectural model at that time. These included:<br /><br />The need to contribute positively to the street, as opposed to taking the form of a free-standing object.<br /><br />The need to work with the Mediterranean climate of the Cape, particularly optimizing breezes for natural ventilation, as opposed to reliance on energy-sapping technologies such as central heating and cooling.<br /><br />The need to contribute to public space, as opposed to privatization of space. A feature of the building is the generosity of its public space.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />A Way Forward<br /><br />In short, we believe that the Werdmuller Centre is important on all counts, and, consequently, that it should not be demolished. Moreover, we believe that it is quite possible to recycle the building as an exciting, mixed use development, including housing and small business. A feature of urban buildings is that they are recycled from time to time. As a way forward, we suggest that the Cape Institute for Architects should approach Old Mutual to explain the importance of the building, and to persuade them to sponsor an architectural competition on creative ways to recycle and regenerate it while returning the building as far as possible to its original spatial quality.Werdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4018594746556350872.post-12003787488507250812007-12-19T00:33:00.000-08:002007-12-19T00:34:23.091-08:0017/12/2007 E-mail received from Tony KileyTo all interested,<br />Im sure that few buildings from the modern era in Cape Town would be capable of generating the concern and interest as well as highlighting issues of theory that are being brought up by the proposed demolition of Roelof Uytenbogaardt's 1970's 'masterpiece'.<br />Some thoughts in no particular order.<br />The building is a very rare example of Corbusian Brutalism where the architect specifically attempted to apply this style to a wholly commercial project.<br />Due to its exposure to the weather, a similar building could not easily be attempted in first world countries that have much more extreme climates.<br />The building is impossible to secure and any attempt to control the many entry points would destroy the concept.<br />The design uses deliberate shock tactics which invert traditional ideas purely to make a (largely) spatial (sculptural) statement. In concretising this formalist sculpture, (the three dimensional design is extremely skillfull and competent) the building realises an extreme form of plastic modernism which is unadaptable to change of use or form.<br />Ultimately time has proved that the building is no more than a utopian attempt to invert the traditional Shopping Mall in the name of off shutter modernism.<br />We are told that the concept is a souk (a vibrant shaded north african street market full of people and produce) but in reality this couldnt be further from the truth.<br />The building blurs the historically important quality of inside and outside and therefore ‘entry’ which defines and dramatises the perception of both. This is fully in keeping with the modernist goal of doing just that.<br />The sloping walkways are not fun or interesting. They do no more than obstruct the clarity of things and appear what they are which is contrived.<br />Roelof would never have done this building in his mature years and I would guess privately admitted being in two minds about the buildings overall success while never doubting its sculptural competence.<br />I have long tried to imagine what other use could be shoe-horned into the building and the closest I have come is a place of education but when I am honest, I dont believe any other use would make sense especially given the location.<br />Modernist buildings have by definition short lives. The cost to repair the concrete rot alone would be hard to manage. Large areas of steel have little or no cover as it was not bent to the designed curves.<br />Sincerely,<br />Tony Kiley. {admirer of Roelof Uytenbogaardt.}Werdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4018594746556350872.post-12732974607380778512007-12-19T00:31:00.000-08:002007-12-19T00:32:39.010-08:0013/12/2007, E-Mail received from Uno PereiraDear Colleagues<br />I would like to comment on the notes taken during the presentation of the Phase One Impact Assessment on the 5th of December. Although I think some interventions needed to be resumed and kept to the essential, in general there was too much left out, and very important aspects of many interventions, to give a few examples:<br />- Imraan Ho-Yee's comments had extremely valid points that weren't included, especially when he asked why doesn't Old Mutual put the Werdmuller Center for sale, since its evaluation as a property is only the value of the site minus demolition costs (Peter de Tolly's comment);<br />-Donald Parenzee also made very valuable comments regarding the part that the Werdmuller Center played as a work of resistance to apartheid's spatial segregation;<br />If possible, and with everyone's contribution, these notes would have much more impact if the people who intervened could rewrite their own passages so that important pieces of information are not left out in this way. The meeting was also filmed, isn't there a way of retrieving some of those comments and keeping them as exact as possible?<br />Kind regards<br />Uno PereiraWerdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4018594746556350872.post-21947528463208068192007-12-19T00:30:00.001-08:002007-12-19T00:31:02.539-08:0012/12/2007 Email received from Abraham CunioDear Colleagues,<br />I would appreciate it if you could circulate my response to the debate that took place at the Institute regarding the preservation of the Werdmuller Centre.<br />I believe that the Werdmuller Centre is a failed building as Roelof has failed to fulfill his brief which was to build a successful shopping centre.<br />It is difficult not to draw a comparison with Cavendish Square that was built at the same time, and which has proved to be an enormous success, commercially and otherwise. This American model certainly has its critique, but while I do agree with Dave Dewar that "Economics has nothing to do with heritage" economics was in this case the brief. The brief was in Dave's words, to build " a kind of souk to attract lower-income shoppers as they pass through it to the Main Road ". Semantics such as not calling a spade a spade but calling it a souk and not a shopping centre does not cover the fact that those shoppers have taken their feet where it was not necessary to twist and turn to shop, and to duck and dive when it rains. For me this is elementary, and if Roelof in his romantic vision did not want to espouse the American model, the many “covered souks” or bazaars of the world from Algiers to Istanbul which also serve low income shoppers could have provided inspiration.<br />It could be argued that although the building has failed in its brief, it has so many other qualities that it must be preserved.<br />It does represent a modernist architectural building of the time. But if a building is all form, and no function – unlike the sports centre at UCT - is it anything else than a pastiche and should it be preserved? The so many post-modern buildings that grace our city come to mind. Is this building any different?<br />To add it all, its many points of access make this building extremely difficult to police as its contorted walkways are an ideal home for criminal elements. Its lack of flexibility is a major constraint to recycling.<br />The question of balance also comes to mind. The Werdmuller in spite of its failure has some undeniable qualities, and I do enjoy walking through it, with reverence, and a sense of nostalgia. If we could be in a vacuum it would be appropriate to preserve it. But we are not, and if we are to weigh its merit against the merit of redeveloping this key site, it stands to reason that the balance has to sway towards a new development. A new development would revitalize this neglected part of Claremont and provide jobs to many people.<br />If a decision is made not to grant a demolition permit, I believe this building will continue to decay, and to drag its surrounding with it. I have still to meet developers brave enough to undertake the recycling of this building with the knowledge that SAHRA is looking over their shoulders.<br />It is sobering to note that the building was not identified in the Todeschini and Japha survey undertaken of the area. I am certain that this must have been an agonizing decision to make. To suggest as Martin Kruger does that this was a serious omission and that Todeschini and Japha “must have been asleep” is most insulting and condescending.<br />The site of the Verdmuller Centre presents a tremendous opportunity for a development our city can ill afford to lose, and for a talented professional team to do it justice.<br />With kind regards,<br />Abraham CunioWerdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4018594746556350872.post-64734859906940650332007-12-19T00:26:00.000-08:002007-12-19T00:28:44.272-08:00Werdmuller Centre Presentation, 5 December 2007<strong>ATTENDANCE REGISTER: WERDMULLER CENTRE PRESENTATION<br />5 DECEMBER 2007<br /></strong><br /><br /><strong>NAME<br />SURNAME<br />EMAIL ADDRESS<br /></strong>1.<br />Peter<br />Fehrsen<br /><a href="mailto:peter@dhk.co.za">peter@dhk.co.za</a><br />2.<br />Ashley<br />Lillie<br /><a href="mailto:Ashley@saheritage.co.za">Ashley@saheritage.co.za</a><br />3.<br />Derek<br />Wiid<br /><a href="mailto:dwa@xsinet.co.za">dwa@xsinet.co.za</a><br />4.<br />Tom<br />Kiley<br /><a href="mailto:tkiley@xsinet.co.za">tkiley@xsinet.co.za</a><br />5.<br />Louise<br />Van Riet<br /><a href="mailto:louisevr@iafrica.com">louisevr@iafrica.com</a><br />6.<br />Alex<br />Robertson<br /><a href="mailto:alex@araconsultants.com">alex@araconsultants.com</a><br />7.<br />David<br />Van den Heever<br /><a href="mailto:dpvdh@iafrica.com">dpvdh@iafrica.com</a><br />8.<br />Derick<br />Henstra<br /><a href="mailto:derrick@dhk.co.za">derrick@dhk.co.za</a><br />9.<br />PJ<br />Puttick<br /><a href="mailto:design@archifox.co.za">design@archifox.co.za</a><br />10.<br />Julian<br />Elliott<br /><a href="mailto:uniarch@iafrica.com">uniarch@iafrica.com</a><br />11.<br />Imraan<br />Ho-Yee<br /><a href="mailto:imrann@zenprop.co.za">imrann@zenprop.co.za</a><br />12.<br />Piet<br />Louw<br />13.<br />Nicolas<br />Baumann<br /><a href="mailto:urbancon@iafrica.com">urbancon@iafrica.com</a><br />14.<br />Verena<br />Graps<br /><a href="mailto:verena@argdesign.co.za">verena@argdesign.co.za</a><br />15.<br />Hugo<br />Helene<br /><a href="mailto:hugo.helene@gmail.com">hugo.helene@gmail.com</a><br />16.<br />Bianca<br />Pfeil<br /><a href="mailto:bianca_pfeil@ganx.net">bianca_pfeil@ganx.net</a><br />17.<br />Jane<br />Visser<br /><a href="mailto:jane@visserthomas.co.za">jane@visserthomas.co.za</a><br />18.<br />Shamiel<br />Gamieldien<br /><a href="mailto:shamil@bamarchitects.co.za">shamil@bamarchitects.co.za</a><br />19.<br />Richard<br />Woodhead<br /><a href="mailto:woodhead@ibi.co.za">woodhead@ibi.co.za</a><br />20.<br />Abraham<br />Cunio<br /><a href="mailto:z73d14j72a@telkomsa.net">z73d14j72a@telkomsa.net</a><br />21.<br />Ivan<br />Flint<br /><a href="mailto:ivan@flintassociates.co.za">ivan@flintassociates.co.za</a><br />22.<br />Lance<br />Smith<br /><a href="mailto:lance@mbarch.co.za">lance@mbarch.co.za</a><br />23<br />Jake<br />De Villiers<br /><a href="mailto:devilliersja@cput.ac.za">devilliersja@cput.ac.za</a><br />24.<br />Dawood<br />Petersen<br /><a href="mailto:dpetersen@parliament.gov.za">dpetersen@parliament.gov.za</a><br />25.<br />Johan<br />Cornelius<br /><a href="mailto:johan-cornelius@capetown.gov.za">johan-cornelius@capetown.gov.za</a><br />26.<br />Jean<br />Nuttall<br /><a href="mailto:bjcarey@mweb.co.za">bjcarey@mweb.co.za</a><br />27.<br />Mathew<br />Eberhard<br /><a href="mailto:matteberhard@gmail.com">matteberhard@gmail.com</a><br />28.<br />Michael<br />Lewis<br /><a href="mailto:maclewis@hotmail.com">mac.lewis@hotmail.com</a><br />29.<br />Nicole<br />Roulillard<br /><a href="mailto:njrouillard@yahoo.co.uk">njrouillard@yahoo.co.uk</a><br />30.<br />Zara<br />Gray<br /><a href="mailto:zaragray@gmail.com">zaragray@gmail.com</a><br />31.<br />Andre<br />Rademeyer<br /><a href="mailto:andre@studiostar.co.za">andre@studiostar.co.za</a><br />32.<br />Daryl<br />Pryce-Lewis<br /><a href="mailto:darryl@ovp.co.za">darryl@ovp.co.za</a><br />33.<br />Gerard<br />Botha<br /><a href="mailto:gerardbotha@hotmail.com">gerardbotha@hotmail.com</a><br />34.<br />Vanessa<br />Kallaway<br /><a href="mailto:vanessa@ncarchitects.co.za">vanessa@ncarchitects.co.za</a><br />35.<br />Hans<br />Niehaus<br /><a href="mailto:hniehaus@mweb.co.za">hniehaus@mweb.co.za</a><br />36.<br />Steven<br /><a href="mailto:steven@archiba.co.za">steven@archiba.co.za</a><br />37.<br />Christopher<br />Wood<br /><a href="mailto:chris@studioarch.co.za">chris@studioarch.co.za</a><br />38.<br />Cobus<br />Van den Berger<br /><a href="mailto:cobus@studioarch.co.za">cobus@studioarch.co.za</a><br />39.<br />Jonathan<br />Green<br /><a href="mailto:jonno@jga.co.za">jonno@jga.co.za</a><br />40.<br />Simone<br />Le Grange<br /><a href="mailto:simone.legrange@gmail.com">simone.legrange@gmail.com</a><br />41.<br />Stella<br />Papanicolaou<br /><a href="mailto:stella.papanicolaou@uct.ac.za">stella.papanicolaou@uct.ac.za</a><br />42.<br />Francis<br />Carter<br /><a href="mailto:Francis.Carter@uct.ac.za">Francis.Carter@uct.ac.za</a><br />43.<br />Fadly<br />Isaacs<br /><a href="mailto:Fadly.Isaacs@uct.ac.za">Fadly.Isaacs@uct.ac.za</a><br />44.<br />Deborah<br />Preller<br /><a href="mailto:preller.gparch@new.co.za">preller.gparch@new.co.za</a><br />45.<br />Kathryn<br />Ewing<br /><a href="mailto:katie@visionplan.co.za">katie@visionplan.co.za</a><br />46.<br />Sandra<br />Van der Merwe<br /><a href="mailto:sandra@visionplan.co.za">sandra@visionplan.co.za</a><br />47.<br />Tiaan<br />Meyer<br /><a href="mailto:tiaan@meyervorster.co.za">tiaan@meyervorster.co.za</a><br />48.<br />John<br />Wilson-Harris<br /><a href="mailto:gabriel@fagan.co.za">gabriel@fagan.co.za</a><br />49.<br />Gabriel<br />Fagan<br /><a href="mailto:gabriel@fagan.co.za">gabriel@fagan.co.za</a><br />50.<br />Gaelen<br />Pinnock<br /><a href="mailto:gaelen@scarletstudio.net">gaelen@scarletstudio.net</a><br />51.<br />Benjamin<br />Moyo<br /><a href="mailto:benjamin.moyo@gmail.com">benjamin.moyo@gmail.com</a><br />52.<br />Olaf<br />Thiele<br /><a href="mailto:post@olaf-thiele.de">post@olaf-thiele.de</a><br />53.<br />Uno<br />Pereira<br /><a href="mailto:unop@riseup.net">unop@riseup.net</a><br />54.<br />Mike<br />Scurr<br /><a href="mailto:mike@archrsa.com">mike@archrsa.com</a><br />55.<br />Jody<br />Matterson<br /><a href="mailto:jody@visionplan.co.za">jody@visionplan.co.za</a><br />56.<br />Ricardo<br />Sa<br /><a href="mailto:ricardoivrisa@gmail.com">ricardoivrisa@gmail.com</a><br />57.<br />Kylie<br />Richards<br /><a href="mailto:kyli_an@yahoo.co.uk">kyli_an@yahoo.co.uk</a><br />58.<br />Jacqui<br />Perrin<br /><a href="mailto:jacqui@visionplan.co.za">jacqui@visionplan.co.za</a><br />59.<br />Gray<br />Robertson<br /><a href="mailto:grayarea@webmail.co.za">grayarea@webmail.co.za</a><br />60.<br />Alex<br />Robertson<br /><a href="mailto:alex@araconsultants.co.za">alex@araconsultants.co.za</a><br />61.<br />Lexi<br />Robertson<br /><a href="mailto:lexi@lexi.za.net">lexi@lexi.za.net</a><br />62.<br />Donald<br />Parenzee<br /><a href="mailto:dparenzee@telkomsa.net">dparenzee@telkomsa.net</a><br />63.<br />Laura<br />Robinson<br /><a href="mailto:ctht@heritage.org.za">ctht@heritage.org.za</a><br />64.<br />Martin<br />Kruger<br /><a href="mailto:uad@martin-kruger.com">uad@martin-kruger.com</a><br />65.<br />Dave<br />Dewar<br /><a href="mailto:David.Dewar@uct.ac.za">David.Dewar@uct.ac.za</a><br />66.<br />Merry<br />Dewar<br /><a href="mailto:mdewar@icon.co.za">mdewar@icon.co.za</a><br />67.<br />Ilze<br />Wolff<br /><a href="mailto:oh.architecture@gmail.com">oh.architecture@gmail.com</a><br />68.<br />Cezar<br />Basada<br /><a href="mailto:oh.architecture@gmail.com">oh.architecture@gmail.com</a><br />69.<br />Steve<br />Townsend<br /><a href="mailto:ssquared@worldonline.co.za">ssquared@worldonline.co.za</a><br />70.<br />Sue<br />Townsend<br /><a href="mailto:ssquared@worldonline.co.za">ssquared@worldonline.co.za</a>Werdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4018594746556350872.post-41687045911514425972007-12-18T23:45:00.000-08:002007-12-19T00:24:09.140-08:00Draft Heritage Statement, Dec 2007,<div align="left"><br /><strong>PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT<br />ERF 54472 CLAREMONT<br />DRAFT HERITAGE STATEMENT: TEXT ONLY</strong><br />Prepared in compliance with Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA)<br />December 2007<br />Peter de Tolly & Associates<br />Aikman Associates: Heritage Management<br />Urban Design Services cc: Heritage Management<br /></div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">WERDMULLER CENTRE DRAFT HERITAGE STATEMENT<br />December 11, 2007<br /><br />1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />In this Heritage Statement it is argued that the existing retail and office building, the<br />Werdmuller Centre despite having been designed by the internationally renowned<br />architect, the late Professor Roelof Uytenbogaardt, and something of a sculptural tour<br />de force, was fatally flawed in design terms. As a result of its flaws it has never been<br />commercially viable and is today not capable of being rehabilitated or secured to adapt<br />to new commercial uses. This evaluation concludes that it is of limited conservation<br />value, in terms of its cultural or social historical importance or as architectural history. It<br />has become a haven for criminals and is a blighting influence on the Claremont CBD.<br />The socio-economic benefits of the redevelopment of the site outweigh its heritage<br />significance. New development would better relate to the adjoining historic Main Road,<br />Claremont Railway Station, the new Bus and Taxi Termini, and the new residential and<br />commercial development in the area.<br />Old Mutual, the owners of the building have resisted the demolition of the building for<br />many years but have resolved that they can no longer do so. A Statement by Old Mutual<br />on their decision to seek demolition of the property is attached as Annexure A.</div><div align="left"><br />2. BACKGROUND<br />Old Mutual wishes to redevelop Erf 54472 Claremont by demolishing the building on the<br />site known as the Werdmuller Centre completed in 1974.<br />As the site exceeds 5 000m² in extent, the comments of the provincial heritage authority,<br />Heritage Western Cape (HWC) must be obtained in terms of Section 38 of the National<br />Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) (NHRA).<br />To this end a Notification of Intent to Develop (NID) form was submitted to HWC<br />recommending that a limited study be undertaken.<br />Peter de Tolly & Associates, Aikman Associates: Heritage Management, and Urban<br />Design Services cc: Heritage Management, were appointed by DHK Architects, Old<br />Mutual.s agents to submit a Notification of Intent to Develop (NID) and to undertake the<br />preparation of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). The latter is a requirement of the<br />HWC.s Record Of Decision (ROD) sent to Aikman Associates in a letter dated 21<br />September 2007).</div><div align="left"><br />3. STATEMENT OF INDEPENDENCE AND ACCREDITATION<br />The authors of this report have no financial interest in the proposed development or any<br />other projects being undertaken by the developers.<br /></div><div align="left">Henry Aikman and Andrew Berman are accredited principal members of the Association<br />of Heritage Impact Assessors: Western Cape (AHAP). They have been involved in<br />urban conservation and heritage assessment since 2000 when the NHRA came into<br />effect and have together prepared many HIA.s. Henry Aikman is an architect with urban<br />design experience in local government heading the urban design section at the CCT<br />from 1987 to 1990. Andrew Berman is also an architect and urban designer and partner<br />in the firm Urban Design Services.<br />Peter de Tolly is an architect, urban designer and city planner with private and public<br />sector experience in Canada, the United States and South Africa. From 1980 until 2004,<br />he worked for the City of Cape Town, as Director of Planning, Deputy City Planner,<br />Acting Director of Economic Development and Tourism, and Director of Land Restitution<br />and Special Projects. During this period he was actively involved in heritage<br />conservation, and in the planning of the Claremont CBD.</div><div align="left"><br />4. LOCALITY<br />The Werdmuller Centre: Erf 54472, Claremont, is situated on the Main Road, Claremont.<br />The property also fronts onto Ralph Street to the south, Newry Street to the north, and to<br />the east onto the Claremont Boulevard now under construction – designed to act as a<br />relief road to the Main Road.</div><div align="left"><br />5. DESCRIPTION AND SETTING<br />Erf 54472 is 6 228 m² in extent. It does not take up the entire block bounded by the Main<br />Road, Ralph Street, Newry Street and Claremont Boulevard, excluding the south<br />western portion, which is under separate ownership and is not part of this application.<br />The subject property is close to the historic Claremont Railway Station, which is located<br />one block to the south east. It also borders the new Taxi Interchange across Ralph<br />Street, and will also border the new Bus Terminus which is under construction across<br />Newry Street.</div><div align="left"><br />6. STATUTORY CONTEXT<br />6.1 Title Deeds<br />There are no restrictive conditions of title preventing the redevelopment of the block.</div><div align="left"><br />6.2 Zoning Scheme<br />The zoning of the site is General Business, B3. Permissible Coverage is 100%. The<br />Bulk Factor is 3.7. The habitable Room factor is 34. The Permissible Height is 7 storeys.<br />There are zero setbacks to the first and second floors, other storeys require a 4.5m<br />setback. It is not in an Urban Conservation Area (Section 108 of the Zoning Scheme).</div><div align="left"><br />6.3 National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999)<br />The proposed redevelopment of the site must be dealt with in terms of Section 38 of the<br />NHRA ( a development or activity that would change the character of a site exceeding<br />5 000m² in extent). A Notification of Intention to Develop Form (NID) was lodged with<br />HWC on 19 September 2007. A reply in the form of a letter was received by Henry<br />Aikman dated 21 September 2007. This requested "that a limited Heritage Impact<br />Assessment, as outlined in the Notification to Develop by Mr Aikman, be done and submitted to<br />HWC for assessment".<br />The heritage significance of the building is assessed in Section 14 below.</div><div align="left"><br />7. HISTORICAL CONTEXT</div><div align="left"><br />7.1 Early settled history<br />The Claremont CBD has its roots in the beginning of colonial settled history. The<br />following text gives a brief overview of the development of Claremont as an urban centre<br />and of the significant changes that it has experienced in the past 35 years.<br />"At the beginning of the 19th Century Thibault.s Map of Cape Town indicated some important<br />routes (such as Main and Protea Roads) already in place, including the location of large rural<br />estates which formed the beginnings of an agricultural based settlement. Within time this<br />settlement became more populous, and with the inception of the Cape Town to Wynberg horse<br />drawn omnibus services (1850), and the completion of the Salt River to Wynberg railway line<br />(1865), Claremont became an identifiable and established satellite village of Cape Town. At the<br />end of the 19th Century Cape Town experienced a development boom. In 1885 the Claremont<br />Municipality was established. Doyle.s map (1891) of Cape Town indicated Claremont as a<br />distinct fine-grain village with buildings lining the Main Road and its side streets. Main Road at<br />that stage was a busy shopping street with shops staying open until 11pm on Saturday nights.<br />The Cape Electric Tramways was established in 1898 and in 1914 the Main Road was upgraded<br />to provide a better access to Simons Town Naval Base..<br />"At the centre of Doyle.s Map the main routes of Protea Road, the Main Road and the railway<br />line are clearly discernable. The 1932 Survey (1:25,000 Series) of the Cape Peninsula shows<br />Claremont as part of a continuous linear development 2km wide centred on the Main Road,<br />stretching south of the city centre to Wynberg, with most villagers living in walking distance of<br />public transport. This pattern would soon change. The mass production in South Africa of the<br />Model A Ford from 1928 onwards started the popularisation of the motorcar as a means of<br />private transport. Increasing pressure on major routes led to the adoption of the Main Road<br />Widening Scheme in 1954. This, together with the declaration of the Claremont CBD as a White<br />Group Area and the formulation of the Claremont Bypass Scheme in the 1960s led to the<br />erosion of the village atmosphere and colonnaded High Street character of Claremont, resulting<br />in bleak open spaces where small shops and houses once stood. Changing shopping patterns<br />and development pressures saw to the closure of once popular suburban department stores like<br />Henshilwoods and Pearces and other landmarks along the Main Road.<br />"The opening of the Cavendish Square shopping centre in 1972 marked the beginning of a new<br />era for Claremont, which has been dominated by the building of shopping centres and corporate<br />office complexes. Associated with this there has been an increasingly deteriorating public<br />environment. Private sector capital has been concentrated on developing internalised spaces<br />and malls, while the resources of the public sector have been absorbed by schemes mainly<br />aimed at alleviating problems relating to traffic congestion and public transportation, and<br />managing the blighted left over spaces between the railway line and the Main Road."1</div><div align="left"><br />7.2 More recently: Cycles of growth, decay and growth<br />As is the case with any business district, Claremont.s CBD has experienced cycles of<br />growth and decay since the 1960s. All of the seven processes shaping core areas of<br />cities can be seen in its structure and fabric: inception, exclusion, separation, extension,<br />competition, readjustment, and urban redevelopment.2<br />While the area is currently undergoing major readjustment and redevelopment, we need<br />to remember how different Claremont was in 1973 from today.<br />The coloured residential population of Claremont had been incrementally removed<br />through the application of the Group Areas Act from the mid 1960s and by the early<br />1970s the job was almost complete. Large areas of late 19th Century row houses were<br />demolished to make way for new commercial development, of which the Werdmuller Centre was one.<br />Koblitz wrote in the February 2007 issue of Property Magazine: "Back in the 70s and 80s,<br />Claremont was a happening place. Before the days of supermalls such as Tyger Valley and<br />Century City, Cavendish Square… and its neighbour The Link (1977) were „it., and Claremont<br />Main Road was the domain of funky shops such as Tallulah.s second-hand clothing and W. Clift<br />and Sons. And of course, with the suburb.s proximity to the University of Cape Town, and world renowned rugby and cricket grounds just around the corner, the suburb looked set for increasing popularity with a CBD that couldn.t fail". 3<br />Then came the 1980s characterised by political turmoil and the failure of the Apartheid<br />government.s "influx control" policy. Claremont no longer served the white and coloured<br />middle classes of the central southern suburbs but rapidly became a centre serving the<br />rapidly growing informal settlements of the Cape Flats like Crossroads, Brown.s Farm<br />etc. The station became a key interchange linking the Lansdowne Road Corridor to the Simon's Town railway line and Main Road bus routes. Businesses that previously served middle class customers moved out.<br />Koblitz continues: "... stores closed their doors. Informal traders set up stands and the traffic<br />(both pedestrian and motorised) reached nightmarish proportions. (The advent of the Kombi taxi aggravated the situation). Serious shoppers and leisure-seekers turned their attention to new destinations north (Tyger Valley), west (the V&A Waterfront), and even south (Constantia<br />Village). Cape Town suddenly had more to offer and the question on everyone.s mind was why<br />battle the Claremont congestion and ever-declining choice when a smorgasbord of alternative<br />environments was on offer throughout the Peninsula?" Tomalin4 in 1972 analysed the growth of Claremont CBD as a retail centre, and focused particularly on whether increased retail floor area was justified in terms of increased spending power available to the area. He concluded that there was an over-provision of retail floor area that was not supported by an adequate increase in spending power.<br />And, that was likely to be exacerbated by the opening of the nearby (2km) Kenilworth<br />Centre, whose first phase was due to open in 1973. Analysis of his figures leads to the<br />conclusion that the Werdmuller Centre could not have been viable at that time.<br />Bus and train access meant that the predominant commuter shoppers were coloured<br />and black. There could not have been either sufficient passing trade, or working<br />population in that particular area to make the Werdmuller Centre viable commercially.<br />These issues are further discussed in ensuing sections.<br />In The Property Magazine article cited above, Koblitz continues: "In the minds of many,<br />Claremont.s CBD had hit the skids: "As to how it got like that, there are a couple of factors and<br />they have to do with the urban dynamics in a metropole," explains Chris Drummond, Chairman<br />of the Claremont Improvement District Company (CIDC). "It.s always fascinating how one area<br />goes up and another goes down".<br />"In Claremont you had the most extraordinary contradiction: you had world-class buildings such as the Vineyard Hotel and the Norwich Oval – internationally acclaimed as one of the finest<br />office developments in South Africa. You had the Swiss Re building, Norwich on Main, and<br />Cavendish Square was undergoing this huge makeover. But then there.s this unbelievable<br />„thing. called Claremont Main Road – Claremont.s equivalent to the San Andreas Fault – and, as<br />a result, on the one side of the road you have success and happiness and on the other it.s an<br />economic disaster".<br />The article continues, noting that the „disaster. zone is "however, home to the heartbeat of<br />Claremont.s economy – the railway station, taxi ranks and bus depots that bring thousands of<br />workers, shoppers and informal traders into the area every day. But urban creep has resulted in<br />crime and grime of note. Chris (Drummond) continues: "The bus station is non-existent, the taxi<br />rank is terrible, the station is unsafe and then there.s the Werdmuller Centre [a concrete<br />structure built in 1973 and which never took off as a commercial centre] -.you can.t have that<br />level of contradiction in an urban area that is meant to be first-class. When you have this wrong-</div><div align="left">side-of-the-road cancer, investment is frightened off, those with properties in the area choose<br />not to maintain them and the degradation of the whole becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy."<br />The area between the Main Road and the Railway Line, apart from the construction of Pick n Pay and Draper Square, saw small changes during the late 1980s and through the 1990s. Retailing largely consisted of and still consists of C and D class shops. The Werdmuller Centre became very much part of this lower-income retailing and apart from the musical instrument shop Bothners. Werdmuller Centre has stayed at that level for over a decade; in spite of the fact that retail and office development in the Claremont CBD generally, grew steadily over three decades.<br />The City's 1976 report „CLAREMONT: A Reassessment of Schemes relating to the<br />Claremont City Sub-Centre., noted that between 1972 and 1976 the combined retail and<br />office floor area almost doubled, from 58 443m² to 114 361m². By 2003, those figures<br />had changed to 123 000m² of occupied retail space and 154 000m² of office space, for a<br />combined total of 277 000m². Much of that growth took place west of the Main Road.<br />Now, that growth has accelerated yet again. If one drew a graph, it would show an ongoing upward trajectory of increasing floor area, coupled to an increase in the quality of retailing (more A and B). In all of this development activity over the past two plus decades, the Werdmuller has lain becalmed, decaying; its trajectory moving steadily downwards. While the rest of the area grew, the Werdmuller continued to lose tenants, and with that, return on investment, meanwhile continuing to cost more and more to maintain.<br />In 1960, Woolworths was located on the east side of the road. Sometime before 1976 it<br />had moved across the Main Road to between Warwick Street and Grove Avenue, together with John Orr.s. Later, still keeping faith with the Main Road, it moved into what was previously the Henshilwood.s building across Warwick Street. That move was so that it could be linked directly to Cavendish Square via an underground pedestrian walkway which was built to connect with the Cavendish basement walkway. It also was accessed from the new Warwick Square parking. But, eventually it had to succumb to the power of Cavendish Square, and it relocated from its Main Road premises into Cavendish Square, occupying two levels, a basement and ground floor, in space previously occupied by Stuttafords.<br />Chris Drummond„s comment on the rental differences pertaining on both sides of Main<br />Road brings into focus the economic difference between the west and east sides of the<br />Main Road. His group had bought the Atrium complex and transformed it into Stadium<br />on Main. "When we bought the Atrium, we had a spectacle outlet in our building and on the<br />opposite (and „right. side) of the road 37 metres away, there was an internet café. The spectacle<br />shop was paying us R34/m² while the internet café was paying R122/m²! A 400% difference!<br />"To all interested parties here in Claremont, it became obvious that if we wanted to see an<br />upgrade we were either going to wait forever for City Council (which, quite rightly, had to play<br />catch-up post 1994 in other areas), or do it ourselves – the latter being the way we decided to<br />go and which meant that two things had to happen: we had to put our hands in our pockets and we had to get organised. And being organised meant drawing together all the stakeholders in the<br />area, from investors to street vendors, because we all had an elected interest in making sure this urban environment would function and improve."</div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">1 HHO Africa, Larry Aberman Town Planners, MCA Planners, Urban Design Services, PDNaidoo & Associates. 2003. CLAREMONT CBD INTEGRATED LAND USE & TRANSPORTSTUDY: A DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK & GROWTH MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FORCLAREMONT CBD. PHASE TWO REPORT.</div><div align="left">2 James Vance: THIS SCENE OF MAN: THE ROLE AND STRUCTURE OF THE CITY IN THEGEOGRAPHY OF WESTERN CIVILISATION. Harper College Press, 1977, pp. 368-372.</div><div align="left">3 Carola Koblitz. THE PROPERTY MAGAZINE. February 2007. Neighbourhood watch:Claremont Comeback.</div><div align="left">4 Peter Tomalin. 1972. ASPECTS OF PLANNING IN RELATION TO CLAREMONT SHOPPING CENTRE. Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree. MURP, UCT.<br /><br />7.3 The latest growth cycle started in 2000<br />The formation of the Claremont Improvement District Company (CIDC) in 2000 was the<br />start of a renewal of confidence in the area. With its initial focus on crime and grime., its careful managing of street children and vagrants, and its cooperation with the City in the planning and upgrading of the look and feel of the area, it transformed the feel of the area, with the result that today there is a Claremont Renaissance., with over R2 billion of new development, including the construction of apartments on both sides of Main Road. By the year.s end some 2 000 people will be living in the heart of the Claremont CBD. Looking ahead, there are discussions about extending the underground parking at Warwick Square and transforming its surface so that it can become one of the projected Four (public) Squares in the Claremont CBD.<br />The City recognised the need for planning, and appointed planning consultants in April<br />2000 to undertake the first phase of an integrated land use/transportation study with the<br />aim of formulating a Development Framework and Growth Management Strategy to<br />guide growth in the Claremont CBD. The Phase One study was completed in September<br />that year and provided a comprehensive evaluation of the existing land use and<br />transport system in Claremont CBD.<br />That was followed by a Phase Two study, which divided the area into a series of<br />precincts and predicted new land use growth and the transport implications. It also<br />contained an urban design evaluation of the area. This phase involved key stakeholders,<br />particularly the CIDC and was completed in August 2003. In the assessment that<br />followed of the study between the City and CIDC, it was agreed that the future focus<br />should be on upgrading the public environment of the Claremont CBD. A Third phase<br />study was started and a draft Implementation Framework completed in mid-2005. The<br />final report with the City officials. recommendations for its adoption and implementation<br />was approved by Mayco on 4 September. The priority is the landscaping of the Main<br />Road to improve it for pedestrians and to reduce its divisive effect. Already, the effects<br />of the proposals can be seen in the new paving along the Main Road and in Dreyer<br />Street.<br />Apart from the proposals to upgrade the public environment, there have been three main<br />outcomes of the studies: first is the construction by the City of the Taxi Interchange and<br />holding area (completed in July 2007), the second is construction of a new Bus<br />Terminus (now underway), and the third is construction of the Claremont Boulevard<br />adjacent to the Railway Line, a relief road to the Main Road (that will siphon traffic off<br />the Main Road). This is being paid for and undertaken by the CIDC (by way of a<br />separate non-profit company) to a cost of R22m.<br />The site occupied by the Werdmuller Centre lies between the new Taxi Interchange and<br />Bus Terminus. The building currently severs the linkage between these two nodes. If the<br />site was redeveloped, a new building could provide space and activities that would<br />contribute positively to both. In so doing, it would recognise the needs of the mostly low<br />income earners that are the main train, bus and taxi commuters.<br />By the time the Werdmuller Centre was constructed, Claremont CBD had graduated<br />from a retail strip along the Main Road to the pre-eminent suburban District Centre in the<br />City of Cape Town. Pre-eminent centre it might have been, but it had suffered from the<br />City.s application of the Main Road Widening Scheme. As new development took place,<br />buildings were setback. This reduced the number of colonnaded historic buildings and<br />already then the „gap tooth. was in evidence between the old and new buildings.<br />Buildings were then generally either two or three storeys high. While the Werdmuller<br />Centre was setback, it maintained the general height5. Today, most of the colonnades<br />are gone and the buildings on either side of the widened Main Road represent a<br />hodgepodge of styles.</div><div align="left"><br />8. HERITAGE RESOURCES<br />The heritage or cultural attributes of a site and its setting can be grouped into four<br />categories: aesthetic, historical, scientific and social. The analysis would indicate that<br />the setting being closely related to the railway/Main Road/ bus and taxi terminals is of<br />some social heritage significance and the Main Road Corridor and Claremont Station is<br />of some historical significance. This significance has not been graded.</div><div align="left"><br />9. DOCUMENTATION AND LITERATURE<br />The most recent description of the building, its origins and present condition, is<br />contained in the monograph by Giovanni Vio entitled ROELOF UYTENBOGAARDT:<br />Senza tempo/Timeless (Il Poligrafo casa editrice, 2006). The building is also briefly<br />discussed by Jean Carey Nuttal in the November 1993 issue of the Transvaal Institute of<br />Architects Journal in the article on Roelof Uytenbogaardt. Rory Lange.s History Essay<br />entitled Character and Composition in the Architecture of Roelof Uytenbogaardt,<br />THE ORDERING OF PLACE (1996), makes reference to it. The Analysis which is the<br />heart. of this Heritage Statement draws from the monograph, the article and the essay.</div><div align="left"><br />10. ALTERATIONS<br />As early as three years after completion, the building was modified by two alterations to<br />remedy deficiencies. The one was the construction of an internal bridge to provide<br />access to the Claremont Post Office, which had leased space in the office portion (i.e.<br />the east side of the building). The other was far more drastic as it required the elevation<br />to the Main Road being enclosed by the addition of glazing (i.e. the enclosure of the<br />panoramic roof terrace). This completely destroyed the upper level access to Main Road and the view to the mountain (see Lange, section 12. 5). Other alterations followed that<br />resurfaced the slate and tarred surfaces with stoneware tiles, enclosed access ramps,<br />set glazing flush with the surface (on the south side) and roofed the atrium; these also<br />completely altered the original concept. Unfortunately, none of these alterations involved</div><div align="left">Uytenbogaardt, so are quite unsympathetic to the original design. More recently, due to<br />structural deterioration, IBR cladding was applied to enclose the access bridge between<br />the two buildings.<br />5 See the fold-out diagram, Figure 4, Claremont Main Road Elevations, in the City of Cape<br />Town.s Report: CLAREMONT: A REASSESSMENT OF SCHEMES RELATING TO THE<br />CLAREMONT SUB-CENTRE. City Engineer.s Department. April 1976<br /><br />11. CONDITION OF THE BUILDING<br />11.1 Photographic record<br />11.2 Engineer’s assessment<br />11.3 The Old Mutual’s Experience<br />[This section to be completed]</div><div align="left"><br />12. ANALYSIS<br />The building<br />12.1 Criteria for Assessment. The National Heritage Resources Act as a starting<br />point<br />To address the issue of significance, reference needs to be made to objective criteria by<br />which the loss or retention of the building is assessed. Those contained in the NHRA are<br />addressed first as they are law.<br />Section 3.3 of the NHRA defines Criteria for Significance as follows:<br />(3) Without limiting the generality of subsections (1) and (2), a place or object is to be considered part of the national estate if it has cultural significance or other special value because of –<br />a) Its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa.s history;<br />b) Its possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of South Africa.s natural or<br />cultural heritage;<br />c) Its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa.s<br />natural or cultural heritage;<br />d) Its importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of South<br />Africa.s natural or cultural places or objects;<br />e) Its importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or<br />cultural group;<br />f) Its importance in demonstrating a high creative or technical achievement at a particular<br />period;<br />g) Its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social,<br />cultural or spiritual reasons;<br />h) Its strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organisation of<br />importance in the history of South Africa;<br />i) Sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa.<br />Of the above criteria, it can be argued that a), b), c), d), and i) have no application. It is<br />criteria, f) in particular, and e), that may have application. As to criterion g), it is unclear<br />as to how the building as such (as opposed to the person) could have strong or special<br />association with a particular community or cultural group.</div><div align="left"><br />It is criterion h) – a person of importance - that primarily triggers the need for this study.<br />The late Professor Uytenbogaardt was nationally and internationally renowned,<br />receiving the South African Institute of Architects (SAIA) highest award, the Gold Medal<br />for Architecture in 1998, the title of South Africa.s Architect of the century by the<br />Financial Mail, the posthumous award by the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap<br />en Kuns of its Medal of Honour for Architecture, and numerous other awards. As an<br />architect and urban designer, he can fairly be termed a .recognised master..<br />We now to turn to criterion f): its „importance in demonstrating a high creative or<br />technical achievement at a particular period.. In its conception, the Werdmuller Centre<br />had a carefully thought-through aesthetic (derived from Le Corbusier – see section 12.4<br />below). It sought to use the flows of people from the various transport termini to create a<br />shopping experience that was urban, the antithesis of the internalised shopping centre.<br />In its original state, it was something of a sculptural tour de force. It also had a structure<br />and palette of materials that was carefully and deliberately chosen.<br />The building, as can be seen from the opinion survey that was conducted (described in<br />section 13 below), is valued (i.e. considered an „important. building) by members of the<br />architectural profession (80% of those surveyed) and therefore must be seen to meet<br />criterion e). The survey however also indicates that a significant number of people do<br />not value the building. There are also design professionals who participated in the<br />Institute for Architecture.s open meeting on 5 December who strongly support retention<br />of the building in terms of both e) and f).<br />The NHRA contains a number of provisions for the protection of heritage resources<br />(Sections 29, 30 and 39). These could have been applicable to the Werdmuller Centre,<br />had the relevant authorities already acted upon them. As they have not, and as the<br />building is less than sixty years old, the building is not protected in terms of Section 34<br />of the NHRA.<br />But, time has taken its toll and that original state has long gone and while it is still<br />possible to see the creative and technical ingenuities, we believe that the failings of the<br />building are such that they are insufficient to qualify retention of the building according to<br />criterion f). More shall be said about this in the text that follows.<br /><br />12.2 Criteria more applicable at the local scale<br />In considering the heritage significance of the building, consideration has been given to<br />other possible criteria. Baumann and Winter have developed a 3-tier grading system for<br />national, regional and local heritage resources as provided for in Section 7 of the NHRA.<br />In the absence of official criteria this Interim System is widely used by AHAP members<br />and is accepted by HWC. At the local or Grade 3 level, criteria are defined for Intrinsic,<br />Associational and Contextual Significance.<br />While these could be applied to this instance, the criteria contained in the Cape<br />Provincial Institute of Architects publication: THE BUILDINGS OF CENTRAL CAPE<br />TOWN 1978, Volume One: Formative Influences and Classification, are considered to<br />be more focused to assessing this particular situation. The CPIA criteria were developed<br />as „a means of isolating and identifying buildings of particular significance in<br />architectural, historical or cultural terms or insofar as they contribute to townscape..<br />While eight criteria are defined, it is only the first five that are considered to be<br />applicable, as 6. has already been addressed under the NHRA criterion h), and the last<br />two, 7. and 8. refer to buildings over 100 years old.<br />The CPIA criteria were as follows:<br />1. Buildings or sites, which are of national or local historic importance or association.<br />2. Buildings, which are rare or outstanding examples of their period.<br />3. Buildings, which form a fine grouping of architectural merit.<br />4. Buildings, which by their presence contribute to a fine urban setting or lend character to a<br />locality.<br />5. Buildings, which contribute to or enhance the quality of a square or other space of<br />significance on which they abut.<br />In terms of these, is the Werdmuller Centre a building that is of „national or local historic<br />importance or association. (criterion 1.)? Is it a „rare or outstanding example of its period.<br />(criterion 2.)? Does it warrant being put onto the national Register? Has it by its<br />presence contributed to a fine urban setting or lent character to its locality? Has it<br />contributed or enhanced the quality of the spaces which border it? All of these questions<br />are addressed in the ensuing text.</div><div align="left"><br />12.3 Review of Uytenbogaardt’s approach to architecture<br />In order to address the above issues of significance, a useful starting point is the three<br />design informants defined by Uytenbogaardt in his text entitled "An approach to<br />architecture" contained in the monograph by Giovanni Vio published in October 2006.6<br />Considerable portions of his text are repeated because they provide the necessary<br />platform for evaluation.<br /></div><div align="left">6 Vio, Giovanni. 2006. Roelof Uytenbogaardt: Senza tempo/Timeless. Il Poligrafo casa editrice.<br /></div><div align="left">Uytenbogaardt wrote: "I believe in architecture of discovery, an approach which rejects<br />preconceptions leading to predetermined ends, in plan, section or elevation. Further, that, „the<br />process of discovery can be described in terms of a sequence of need, programme, idea and<br />context. The process, in the first instance, should be informed by a sensitive understanding of<br />human needs and requirements, physical, social, psychological and cultural.….„Human needs<br />give rise to a programme of requirements. The programme has no form but has implications for<br />form. Programme has two main informants.<br />"The one is the requirements generated by the activities and functions which will be housed in<br />the building and by the needs of the people who carry out those activities. The other derives<br />from the special consciousness of the individual about the art of architecture. This<br />consciousness substantially impacts on the way in which the problem is finally defined. For my<br />part, architecture is a continuum of past, present and future and the great search is for the<br />timeless qualities of architecture. The fact that most people of any one generation live in, and<br />use, buildings made by past generations and that most buildings today will house future<br />generations is an important realisation. It underscores the fact that the qualities, which make<br />buildings truly enduring, are capable of recognition beyond cultural change. This qualitative,<br />non-programmatic dimension of architecture transcends, but still incorporates, the programme of the immediate client…. No really significant architecture can ever result from an approach, which is informed simply by the immediate programme of functional requirements. Great architecture<br />results from an approach when the non-programmatic and programmatic dimensions of<br />buildings are brought into appropriate relationships with each other.<br />"In summary, every project (should) respond to three major informants: the programmatic (the<br />translation of human and cultural requirements and activities into the language of a building); the non-programmatic (the art of architecture over time in many contexts); and context (the<br />dictates of place). Taken together, these provide the constraints which are of enormous<br />assistances to design" (emphasis added).<br />The following text from the exhibition on Uytenbogaardt.s work held at the South African<br />National Gallery explained the building.: „This building (was) designed as an alternative to<br />the internally oriented shopping mall, an exploration of light and interconnected space in which<br />one always would be aware of the building as a whole and of the world outside...The building<br />responds to the pedestrian desire lines from Main Road to Claremont Station, the route from the former picked up at street level and wound up through the building in the form of a ramp, to<br />terminate in an upper terrace with a view towards Devil.s Peak and overlooking the road. The<br />offices are given views into the building and open into planned terraces with sunlight and<br />external views.<br />The next sections will explore the recorded key influences underpinning the design, how<br />the above informants and objectives were realised and their success or otherwise over<br />the 30 years since the construction of the development.<br />12.4 The influence of Le Corbusier in the design of the building<br />According to Uytenbogaardt the Werdmuller Centre reflects an exploration of Le<br />Corbusier, .one of the most innovative space makers we have known. Even in making the<br />drawings I was influenced by him". 7 Lange has suggested that the Werdmuller Centre was<br />produced during a period of „infatuation. with Le Corbusier's work8.<br />The Werdmuller Centre is certainly a distinctive and unusual building. The remainder of<br />this section explains its stylistic origins, placing the building within its architectural<br />historical context. It traces the aesthetic to Le Corbusier.s purist and brutalist phase, lists<br />relevant theory and other Corbusian features. It also includes Uytenbogaardt.s own<br />contribution in extending the Corbusian language. It alludes to the link between modern<br />art and modern architecture, both the stylistic qualities and motifs as well as the shared<br />strategies and gambits employed by the modern artist and modern architect.<br />The design of Werdmuller Centre can be firmly placed as being directly influenced by<br />the controversial Swiss/ French architect Le Corbusier (Charles – Edward Jeanneret –<br />Gris, 1887-1968). He was arguably the most influential architect of the twentieth century<br />and also had a great effect on modernist town planning. It closely resembles Le<br />Corbusier.s Carpenter Centre, the notable Harvard visual arts building built only ten<br />years previously. It shares the use of Le Corbusier.s five points of architecture, the use<br />of ramps, materials, finishes and details.<br />Le Corbusier and Ozenfant founded the Purism (an avant garde painting) movement in<br />1918. Leger is perhaps the most famous artist associated with the Purists. Theirs was a<br />reaction to the fragmentary nature of cubist painting. The machine and industrial motifs<br />were given a stripped, classical quality. Simple, platonic forms were used, devoid of<br />detail. Similar such forms and motifs can be found in Le Corbusier.s architecture such as<br />the simple column, rectangular composition, stripped forms and the use of the<br />serpentine curve.<br />Twenty years after the purist movement ended Corbusier embarked on his brutalist<br />period, using „beton brut. (raw concrete). Rough concrete was exposed, as well as<br />services. This movement was popular amongst architects in the 60.s and 70.s. The<br />brutalist aesthetic is evident in Werdmuller in the sheer, solid towers and unplastered<br />concrete and exposed plumbing services. Dark slate and tar are used in a brutalist<br />fashion as they are materials without positive tactile qualities. Uncompromising forms<br />and harsh materials are used rigorously and consistently throughout the building in a<br />highly sculptural way.<br />Le Corbusier.s five points were published in a booklet written for the Stuttgart<br />Weissenhof housing exhibition in 1927.9<br />They are as follows:<br />1. "Le Toit Terasse" or Roof Garden<br />The space occupied by the building on the ground floor is recaptured by the roof garden.<br />It allows for additional outside space and the garden maintains constant humidity<br />ensuring protection of the reinforced concrete roof slab.<br />2. "La Maison Sur Pilotis"<br />The house is lifted on supports, away from the damp ground. Piloti are plain, simple,<br />undecorated columns. Their role is to support the floor without beams, allowing the slabs<br />to „float. as a horizontal square plane. Their use implies a logical grid. This sets up a<br />pattern of columns which gives rhythm and sense of scale. The use of a structural grid<br />frees up the walls to operate independently to structure. No structural compromises are<br />necessary for the making of space.<br />In the Werdmuller Centre the columns do not necessarily support the floor immediately<br />above, but may skip a level or two, supporting a slab or roof at a much higher level.<br />3. "Le Fenêtre en Longuer" -The horizontal window<br />Long spans are possible using reinforced concrete. Increased illumination is possible<br />Ribbon type windows accentuate the horizontal character of modern buildings, in<br />contrast to the vertical quality of traditional architecture.<br />4. "Le Plan Libre" – The Free Plan<br />The piloti support system carries the load of the structure, enabling freedom in the design<br />of the plan and the movement system.<br />5. "La Façade Libre" – The Free Facade<br />The pilotis are inside the building. The floors may project, thus freeing up the façade from<br />its supporting role. The façade can thus be designed without compromises to reflect the<br />internal use or to act as a screen of some kind, and can be separated from the building. It<br />can be designed with various thicknesses and can mediate the zone between inside and<br />outside.<br />A Corbusian feature, not listed in his five points, was the use of the ramp as a device to<br />move through a building. In addition to these principles, other modernist conventions<br />include simplified and abstracted forms, no decoration or ornament, and the building<br />structured by movement.<br />The five points were a radical departure from the architecture of the past. They were<br />originally intended for domestic architecture, though Le Corbusier used these principles<br />in later, non-residential projects. The Werdmuller Centre is one of the few buildings in<br />South Africa which follows Le Corbusier.s Five Points of Architecture.<br />Uytenbogaardt extended the possibilities using the vocabulary of the five points by<br />sophisticated use of complex geometries, the use of pilotis „skipping. floors and<br />supporting levels higher up as well as the tilting of floor planes (Lange). The architect<br />has pursued his intention to work in this particular mode with almost uncompromising<br />rigour. The self imposed rules have been relentlessly pursued and sculptural effects<br />have been taken extremely far.<br />The qualities of reinforced concrete have been exploited, both structurally with daring<br />spans and its plastic, sculptural opportunities with curved and serpentine forms. The<br />qualities of the rough materials are laid bare in an unabashed exposure of raw concrete,<br />slate and tar, unashamedly expressed.<br />There are many parts of the building which display a virtuoso.s skill in sculptural<br />articulation and the manipulation of space, most evident in the north entrance on Newry<br />Street.<br />It is important to note that the modernist project articulated by Le Corbusier was in<br />opposition to traditional architecture. It was utopian, anti bourgeois and socialist. The<br />programme of this new architecture was a negation of the past, which was thought to<br />have no relevance in the modern world. It ignored history, place and identity, hence the<br />name „international style., a generic term for modern architecture.<br />The modernist aesthetic, while championed by the architectural establishment to this<br />day, has not been a popular style. It could be argued that it was always the intention of<br />the architect in the role of the modern artist to challenge accepted notions and to move<br />forward to a new architecture appropriate to the changed circumstances of the modern<br />world. This is consistent with the „historicist. idea of progress in art as well as the<br />widespread notion of the „spirit of the times. (zeitgeist) demanding new forms.<br />It was the intention of the early modern artist (Le Corbusier was also a painter) to react<br />against the excesses of the Victorian and Edwardian times. There was a belief, still held<br />by some today that traditional forms had been exhausted, and had degenerated into<br />commercialized and sentimental banality. The modern artist, in reacting against this kitsch., made art that was purposely difficult to fathom, and once appreciated through<br />education and awareness, became an acquired elevated taste.<br />This may go towards explaining why many architects have pursued and appreciated the<br />modernist style in spite of its unpopularity with the general public. Werdmuller Centre is<br />a good example of this.<br />Nuttal quotes Uytenbogaardt as saying that: "You slightly lose your head in the way you<br />want to form that space. It was idealism, a love affair." For Lange: "If the Werdmuller Centre is<br />Corbusien, it is the Corbu of L „Œuvre Complet: black and white, heroic, polemical" (p23).</div><div align="left"> </div><div align="left">7 Nuttal, Jean Carey. "Roelof Uytenbogaardt", in the Transvaal Institute of Architects Journal,p14, November 1993.</div><div align="left">8 Lange, Rory. 1996. Character and Composition in the Architecture of Roelof Sarel Uytenbogaardt THEORDERING OF PLACE. History Essay, University of Cape Town.</div><div align="left">9 Roth, Alfred. 1927. Zwei Wöhnhauser von Le Corbusier und Pierre Jeaneret.</div><div align="left"><br />12.5 Comments on Uytenbogaardt’s ‘informants’<br />When it came to the design of the Werdmuller Centre, the programmatic content was<br />given specificity by the following objectives contained in a feasibility study:<br />1. The economic viability of developing the site, not necessarily as a separate entity but as<br />a total development in conjunction with the present proposed scheme.<br />2. A development which will complement and enhance the potential of the proposed<br />scheme in Economic terms and in Architectural and Planning terms.<br />3. The inclusion of housing within the total development to expedite the granting of<br />permission by the Department of Community Development10.<br />The Study.s Introduction claimed that "No other site in this commercial area enjoys this rich<br />distribution of accessibility to the same extent as does the LHC (i.e. Werdmuller) site,<br />immediately surrounded as it is by origins of dense pedestrian movements, representing a<br />considerable purchasing power".<br />The feasibility analysis also stated: "The proposed development consists of two portions. The<br />first, LHC1, is informed by the concept of drawing the public well into the heart of a multi-level<br />court surrounded by shops of great variety both in size and spatial characteristics. A generous<br />public circulation system encourages the public to move from street to street by means of a<br />series of short cuts through the scheme, each partaking of the central space that reveals what is<br />available to the shopper".<br />The Werdmuller Centre was in fact two buildings. This derived from the Mutual initially<br />owning only the portion fronting onto Main Road and then later acquiring the portion<br />fronting onto what is today Claremont Boulevard, on the east, Railway Station side. The<br />Feasibility Study shows a design that took account of the two sites, with a department<br />store with apartments above fronting onto the Station and small-scale retail on the<br />remainder, leading to the Main Road. As built, the two buildings were decisively<br />separated by the geometry of the design and were linked by bridges and a service core.<br />The uniqueness of the building was given credit in an article in the Cape Times of 21<br />November, 1975. This was headed: Fine architecture graces Claremont. John Benzon<br />wrote: "VALID ARCHITECTURE grows naturally out of recognising the nature of a site and the<br />human dynamics involved. In these days, when commercial men and public authorities foist<br />upon us one misbegotten apology for architecture after another, it is a pleasure to visit a site<br />where sound architectural and commercial principles seem to have been combined.... Not only is<br />it interesting architecture, but it is beginning to create a hub of convenient and useful shops and<br />places of refreshment that continues the pattern and tradition of Claremont".<br />Lange characterises the Werdmuller as an „early. work where the preoccupation is with<br />the themes of transport and movement, rather than an involvement in the making of<br />place. The movement theme found its expression in the Werdmuller, where the building<br />could also be seen as an urban micro replica of an Italian hill town, (perhaps Calcata<br />and Viterbo, which Uytenbogaardt studied while he was a Rome Scholar?). Its ramps<br />were designed to lead you up to the open terrace and restaurant overlooking the Main<br />Road and mountain.<br />According to Lange, the mountain was a crucial focus. Lange expresses this mountain<br />relation as follows: "An analogy for the Werdmuller building is the mountain to which it gesticulates. The building may be seen as a metaphor for the mountain, a solid piece of materialriven by cracks and fissures, mountain paths and streams. The tar paving on the floor surfacesinside the building seems to leak onto the roads and pavement outside it; the tall slendercolumns become trees in a mountain crevasse: the sombre tones of concrete, the exposure towind and rain all ask for comparison to the mountain".Whatever its origins, there is no doubt that with its retail and office spaces and theirrelation to the internal system of ramps and walkways, and their relationship to theadjacent streets, the Werdmuller Centre was a microcosm of European urbanity - theantithesis of the formulaic inwardly focused shopping centre. Indeed, when it wascompleted in 1974, the building was unique in Cape Town. It was complex and daring inspatial organisation and form.It can fairly be said that the first two informants for the site - „programmatic. and „nonprogrammatic.- were for the time, ambitious, even visionary. As a building, for its nonprogrammatic,architecture as art dimension, Werdmuller would, one imagines, havebeen considered by many fellow professionals at that time, as an outstandingarchitectural example of its period.But, there were dissenters. Laurie Wale in the May 1976 Architect and Builder advancedcriticisms about the complexity of the building, of its hard surfaces, and expressedscepticism of its ability to capture enough retail trade. Wale recognised that the buildingwas not designed with commercial return as the priority: "Only 60% of the overall bulk hasbeen used. Ramps, arcades, gardens, voluntary set-backs and services consume about 50 percent of the building leaving the remaining half of the area as lettable. It is obvious therefore thatthis is not a project seeking to squeeze out the maximum revenue-earning footage."According to Old Mutual Property Analyst, Derek Stuart-Findlay11, the design andviability assumptions and findings were not critically analysed by then Old Mutual staff.The design in fact demonstrated a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of retailing.This lack of understanding was echoed in the feasibility analysis which did not factor inthe commercial return penalties imposed by the design, such as the poor retail exposureto the Main Road, the additional operating costs that had to result from the largeamounts of public walkways, malls and light well areas, to name only some of theimpositions. The purchasing power assumptions were not born out.It proved not possible to secure a department store tenant, and the department storemade way for shops on the Ground Floor and offices above. The apartments were neverbuilt. The west facing portion was developed with retail as originally planned. TheClaremont Post Office was located in the office section and eventually joined by aspecially constructed bridge, as people could not find their way to it. Over time, the PostOffice moved out.</div><div align="left"><br />10 Uytenbogaardt RS, Laurie, Nicholson and Nel. February 1969. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ERVEN 55840 and 54433 CLAREMONT FOR LHC PROPERTIES LTD. </div><div align="left">11 Derek Stuart-Findlay, 2007. WERDMULLER CENTRE, CLAREMONT: AN HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE<br />AS A PROPERTY INVESTMENT. Also, personal interview. See section 12.8 and Annexure B.<br /></div><div align="left">So the question has to be asked whether the assumptions have stood up to the passage<br />of time. Today, the conclusion has to be that there were design faults that have proved<br />to be beyond remedy and time has not been kind to the original work; political, social<br />and economic changes have taken place that could not be anticipated.<br />Indeed, this is recognised in Vio.s text when he writes of his intention in 1995 to compile<br />a dossier of works to be chosen for publication in the magazine „Spazio & Società.. "Only<br />the Werdmuller shopping mall was not considered out of the works that Roelof intended to<br />publish. Perhaps because it was later greatly modified by others, adapted for a use that no<br />longer corresponded to the initial project." For his monograph, Vio writes that "I found it<br />necessary to include it because it is an extremely sophisticated work, spatially complex and full<br />of radical ideas, one of the few cases of an architectural utopia commissioned by a private client,<br />and with commercial aims at that: these qualities can be still seen even in its advanced state of<br />degeneration" (op. cit p20).<br />A reality of the Werdmuller Centre was that programme was substantially subsumed to<br />composition and character, function to form:<br />. The amount of lettable to service space was very poor (at only 52%12 this<br />seriously affected commercial viability). The standard in the industry for a retail<br />development would be an efficiency of 80%13 (see Section 12.9);<br />. There was an underutilisation of 9 250m² of the potential usable revenue<br />generating floor area; significantly reducing the possibility of achieving a decent<br />return on investment (Ballard);<br />. The system of passages, ramps and level spaces proved to be overly complex<br />and confusing, with „destinations. (such as the Wimpy on the mountainside upper<br />floor) proving to be non-destinations as they were difficult to see from the ground.<br />Indeed the ramps were so off-putting that they dissuaded people from using them<br />and that in turn led to traders moving out (see section 12.9);<br />. The design made insufficient provision for a significant anchor tenant, resulting in<br />an over-supply of small line shops that lacked the drawing power need to provide<br />retail sustainability;<br />. there was minimal weather protection for people accessing the shops or moving<br />through the building (in the wet its ramps were dangerous);<br />. the sizes and shapes of the retail areas were too small and awkward in shape<br />(restricted by the rigid layout and construction) to be adjustable to changing retail<br />needs and trends;<br />. Main Road retail frontage which was the prime exposure, demonstrated a poor<br />understanding of the dynamics of retailing (the critically important corner at Newry<br />Street and Main Road was taken by the blank facade behind which was a<br />circulation core, much of the frontage was a continuation of the street into the<br />building, with the shops behind hard to see from the road. This element is now<br />plastered with signs of the internal shops desperate to attract customers);.</div><div align="left"><br />12 DHK Architects. E-mail communication. 2007-11-06.<br />13 Ballard, Bruce. 2007. Werdmuller Centre, Claremont: Commercial and Operational<br />Perspective. Old Mutual Investment Group – Property Investments (OMIGPI)<br /></div><div align="left">On-site parking was limited to 15 tenant bays (as opposed to the 584 that should<br />have been provided for in such a sized centre14). No shopper parking was<br />provided. Parking was awkward to access via the narrow and congested Newry<br />Street. Whatever the designer.s founding assumptions, the reality was that the<br />Werdmuller could not attract the upper-income shoppers that it was designed for;<br />its captive market had to be primarily lower-income shoppers (for whom nearby<br />OK Bazaars would have been the prime destination);<br />The construction of the building mitigated against services upgrading (such as<br />providing for „smart. buildings technology services).<br />Other commercial failings are covered in subsequent sections, and a full summary is<br />provided in the Conclusions on Significance section.<br />Wale.s criticism showed perspicacity. Unfortunately, whatever its aspirations, the<br />assumptions of how people should shop and work have not been vindicated over the<br />subsequent thirty plus years. In that dimension of the building, it has not stood the<br />timeless quality test as articulated by Uytenbogaardt that has been quoted above. A<br />subsequent generation has not been able to use the building in new, but commercially<br />viable ways.<br />Subsequently, the Werdmuller Centre has been modified extensively so as to remedy its<br />functional defects (of layout, form and construction), in ways that have eroded its original<br />concept and that have disfigured it. That process started only three years after<br />completion. Unfortunately, those changes were not made by Uytenbogaardt and have<br />disfigured the original concept. A visit to the Church on Main which occupies the first<br />floor offices fronting on to Main Road, plus adjacent back space, will reveal the extent of<br />the changes. The Open Terrace has been (crudely) roofed, ramps have been glazed,<br />original exterior glazed walling to the ramps has been removed and new partitioning<br />added. The cumulative impact is harrowing. It has also deteriorated structurally (external<br />panels have been removed) to the point that it is looking seriously rundown. The flat<br />roofs leak, the parapets leak and water penetrates the fenestration.<br />What needs to be understood is that the alterations that have been made were in<br />response to the building.s defects. They further reduced the economic viability of the<br />building.<br />Uytenbogaardt recognised that there were problems and that the building had its<br />detractors. He remarked to Nuttal that "making this building was one of the most exciting<br />experiences we have ever had, yet it is believed by many to be our most inhuman work. The<br />realisation that people have found it difficult to accept has been very sobering. It is too severe - I was trying to be very purist. I think it has to do with materials, the unrelieved concrete. The<br />finishes should be more friendly and less light-absorbing - one begins to lose light on the first<br />ramp. I did not want to distinguish strongly between the public space outside and the inside of<br />the building, and so the paving slate was increased as the building was penetrated. Had there been concrete paving slabs outside, the spaces could have been lightened as one got into them.<br />I should have known about opening the building to the wind".<br />When the Werdmuller was designed, who could have envisaged that security would<br />become a major design and management preoccupation; indeed a necessity? The<br />Werdmuller Centre is a security nightmare. It has become unsafe, its ramps and blind<br />spaces offer havens for muggers and other ne´er-do-wells. On a recent visit to the<br />office section overlooking Newry Street and the Station, one of the authors of this text met a group of people sitting on an upstairs open walkway. They were working in the<br />small Habits factory (serving the Habits Clothing Shop on Cavendish Street). One<br />asked: "Are you from Cape Town?" When asked the reason for the question the answer<br />was that they never go through the building or sit anywhere in it other than in groups as<br />it is too unsafe. Walking alone was a cause for astonishment. On another recent visit, a<br />security guard commented that he wished the building was demolished because it isimpossible to keep secure. See also Section 12.9 for the views of the StationCommissioner SAPS, Claremont on the building as a facilitator of crime.The design of the building renders securing it impossible; certainly not without totallydisfiguring the building.In his monograph, Giovanni Vio makes two other references to the present poorcondition of the Werdmuller Centre. In the one, he comments on the Werdmullertogether with the UCT Sports Centre, and the Simons Town Memorial Garden: "The(y) …are places I have visited often over the last ten years and have viewed their recent life. They arerelics15 more than buildings and are badly conserved," (p.23) and to the Werdmuller (p.71), as"… an urban wreck, a hulking part of the city that looks more like an assemblage of variousparts, fragments of façade between vulgar shop hoardings, created at different times, ratherthan all at once" (emphases added).Sadly, these descriptions are all too true, and the building in its present condition is ashadow of the original.What one has to deduce is that the programmatic informant as outlined byUytenbogaardt has not proven in the case of the Werdmuller Centre to be sufficientlyadaptable to be commercially sustainable.As to Uytenbogaardt.s third informant, context, that has changed dramatically over thepast thirty years, very directly impacting on the building. The area adjacent to thebuilding has been for the past ten plus years a rather sorry set of spaces - open tarmacsurfaced parking lots, streets with buses and kombi taxis fighting for space andpassengers, congestion between them and cars, and a „flowering. of informal trading.Vio catalogues this vividly both photographically and in his text. Now, the context to theWerdmuller is changing again, with construction complete of the Taxi Interchange to thesouth of the building, and the construction of the Claremont Boulevard (referred to in15 "Something left behind after decay, disintegration, or disappearance." The Penguin EnglishDictionary, 2004.<br /></div><div align="left">14 Ballard, opus cit.<br /><br /><br />Vio.s text as the Lower Main Road), and the new Bus Interchange to the north. The<br />immediate contexts to the building will be during next year fundamentally different to<br />what was the case in the 1970s. Adjacent to the Werdmuller, there has been recent<br />development and redevelopment, commercial and residential, on both sides of Main<br />Road. The area between the Main Road and Railway Line is moving steadily upmarket.<br />The Contexts provided by Cavendish Square and Cape Town’s CBD</div><div align="left"><br />12.6 The Werdmuller Centre in the context of Cavendish Square<br />Vio writes on the Old Mutual.s creation that: "…(it) was meant to bring quality to an<br />undeveloped piece of land" and "the Old Mutual had aimed extremely high believing in Roelof<br />Uytenbogaardt.s visions, perhaps unaware that this was a radical alternative to the model of<br />shopping centres being built at the time in Cape Town, imported from the USA where, almost<br />twenty years after Victor Gruen.s first attempts for Minneapolis…in its place planners were<br />already experimenting with festival malls, commercial spaces integrated with urban centres,<br />such as Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco or Quincy Market in Boston, aimed at alleviating the<br />individual.s profound sense of alienation and obviating the problem of emptying the cities." (op.<br />cit p71)<br />Vio continues "Roelof Uytenbogaardt had probably illustrated the problem to his clients and<br />convinced them to create a new piece of Claremont with this work, crowned by a panoramic roof<br />terrace from which to observe Devil.s Peak on Table Mountain" (op. cit p71).<br />While anybody who has visited those two overseas examples will know that their<br />locational and situational (socio-economic) conditions were and still are, worlds removed<br />from that of the Werdmuller Centre, it would appear that neither the Old Mutual Board.s<br />Building Committee nor the officials that advised them16 had that knowledge. The Mutual<br />was then in the throes of moving into property as an investment; property development<br />having previously been limited to providing housing for Old Mutual workers. The<br />Werdmuller was the Mutual.s first foray into investing directly in commercial property in<br />Claremont and was seen to be a high profile, image-making venture in which return on<br />investment was secondary.<br />The Building Committee was persuaded by Uytenbogaardt in a direct presentation to it<br />using the model that had been built17, that the design would attract high income<br />shoppers, and that it was viable18. Unfortunately, neither of these happened. (See<br />section 12.8)</div><div align="left"><br />16 The Building Committee members were Brigadier Werdmuller, Paul Sauer and Nic Krone. The key officials involved such as Jimmy Moyle and Charl Pienaar, both Assistant General<br />Managers, came out of Sales and Administration.<br />17 See the Cape Times of Friday 21 November 1975 for a photograph of the model and the<br />architect.<br />18 Interview with Mr Peter Bieber, Former General Manager, Old Mutual.<br /><br />The Werdmuller Centre was constructed soon after the first phase of the construction of<br />Cavendish Square (today the epitome of the commercially successful internalised<br />shopping mall). Cavendish was the creation of Stuttafords (which opened in September<br />1971) and Greatermans (opening one year later), with the Old Mutual initially being an<br />equity partner. During the 1970s the Old Mutual became the outright owner and the<br />Centre as it is today is the result of its improvements and additions. Whatever the initial<br />shortcomings were of Cavendish, it even then had to have exerted a profound impact on<br />the viability of Werdmuller Centre.<br />It appears that the then Old Mutual Building Committee in approving the development of<br />Werdmuller Centre, did not factor in the creation of Cavendish Square and also was not<br />aware that Kenilworth Centre was being developed by Anglo-American Properties to<br />attract middle-class, predominantly coloured, shoppers (Bieber). Both of these were<br />creating a situation in which the Werdmuller could not succeed. It also appears that<br />neither Uytenbogaardt nor the Quantity Surveyors factored in these other developments,<br />or the realities of who the main shoppers were between the Main Road and the railway<br />line. Certainly, it was a decision that ignored the advice of one of its Property staff not to<br />proceed with the development of the Werdmuller Centre (Stuart-Findlay).<br />Even then, it had to be clear to an objective observer that the Werdmuller was in a<br />disadvantaged situation in terms of its location east of the Main Road, an area which<br />served predominantly lower middle income people. And in its inability compared to<br />Cavendish Square to house the combination of what was already a commercially proven<br />mix of major and minor retail tenants, with plentiful on-site parking (more readily<br />accessible by car to its trading area and free for two years after opening), with full air<br />conditioning and with flexibility to respond to changing retail patterns. As has been<br />written previously, the Werdmuller Centre made no provision for shopper parking.<br />A visit today will reveal the juxtaposition of the two – the „urban wreck. of the<br />Werdmuller (to quote Vio), and the ever-expanding universe of Cavendish Square, and<br />other nearby buildings. Cavendish Square has recently been linked by above ground<br />bridges and by a completely refurbished Dreyer Street, to the redeveloped Link, which<br />has become „Cavendish Connect., to the cost of some R104m.<br /></div><div align="left">12.7 The Werdmuller Centre in the context of Cape Town’s CBD<br />One needs to remember that the Werdmuller was not alone in its assumption that a<br />transport hub/interchange and passing pedestrian traffic were guarantors of retail<br />success.<br />It is useful to reflect on other similar experiments developed in Cape Town.s CBD during<br />the 1970s and early 1980s that placed retail along walkways to capture passing trade:<br />the Golden Acre, Strand Street Concourse, Sun Gallery and the other parts of the<br />underground walkway system. Each of these was derived from overseas precedents<br />(without the same preconditions that made those work) and each opened to great<br />fanfare, with „A. and „B. retail shopping in them. Over time, the Golden Acre has seen a<br />number of internal changes, none of which have brought back premier retailing. The<br />underground walkways have all degenerated physically and have all failed<br />commercially. At one stage, the Old Mutual approached the City to have the Mutual<br />Arcade closed, it was trading so badly.<br /></div><div align="left">Viability</div><p align="left"><br />12.8 The Werdmuller Centre has never been commercially viable<br />Two viability assessments are attached as Annexures B and C. The first is by Derek<br />Stuart-Findlay who prior to his retirement in 2002, held a number of senior management<br />positions in Old Mutual Properties, and the second by Bruce Ballard who is currently a<br />Development Manager with Old Mutual Properties.<br />Stuart-Findlay had joined Old Mutual Property Division (later renamed Old Mutual<br />Properties) as a Property Investment Analyst in 1970. One of his first assignments was<br />to review the feasibility of the Werdmuller Centre, which at that time had an approval in<br />principle from the Board.s Building Committee. Stuart-Findlay.s Report gives a brief<br />history of the project, and his reasons for recommending that the project not proceed<br />due to "... viability (being) extremely risky". He quoted the net returns as being marginal<br />(5%), as opposed to the industry norm of a growth of at least 25%, as the Werdmuller<br />"relied on relatively high rentals from the numerous small shops in the design". As has been<br />explained before in this Assessment, the location and design of the building precluded<br />high rentals being attained.<br />Stuart-Findlay prefaces his analysis as follows:<br />"The site had been assembled east of the Main road between Newry and Ralph streets<br />excluding a building on the corner of Main and Ralph, and had initially excluded the rear third of<br />the property opposite Claremont station.<br />"Professor Roelof Uytenbogaardt had been appointed to design a retail structure for the site and<br />had evolved a unique concept, a model of which he had presented to Old Mutual's Property<br />Committee. Virtually the whole of the valuable Main road street frontage was used to create an<br />entrance which was intended to draw customers into the centre via a series of ramps to upper<br />and lower floors. No large draw-card tenant was planned for. By early 1969 the rear third of the<br />site had been acquired and the initial plans for the additional area were to rectify this and<br />incorporate a department store. A year later no tenant had been found for this space and the<br />plans were amended to construct more small shops with offices above, but with minimal linkages to the main structure.<br />"The Chairman of the Building Committee was Old Mutual's Board Chairman, Brigadier<br />Werdmuller, who had been responsible for the recruiting of South Africa's forces during World<br />War II and was nearing the end of his term of office on the Board. A proposal to name the<br />building after him was adopted".<br />The following are the reasons given in Stuart-Findlay.s report for his dubiousness about<br />the viability of the project:<br />.The relatively low levels of rentals in the area, close to the rail and bus stations.<br />. The forfeiture of income from the important Main road frontage.<br />. The lack of a draw-card tenant.<br />. The lack of safe parking for customers - only 15 bays were provided and these were to<br />be allocated to the office tenants.<br />. The excessive amount of public mall and light well area in the design - the ratio of<br />lettable area to gross building area was extremely low at some 50%.<br />. Although this ratio should have indicated above average common area costs for security,<br />cleaning, maintenance etc., the viability study had made no attempt to quantify these and<br />had merely assumed they would be 25% of the gross income.<br />On final viability, he writes:<br />"The tenders came in well above estimate and if I recall correctly, net returns indicated a return<br />of not much more than 5%. Inflation and required yields were relatively low at the end of the<br />1960s but were increasing in the early 1970s as the first oil crisis loomed. I remember clearly<br />recommending to Charl Pienaar, Old Mutual's Manager responsible for the Property Division at<br />the time, that the viability was extremely risky and that the project should not go ahead. I was<br />surprised to be given the response 'You're probably right but it's too late to change the<br />recommendation to go ahead now.' I am certain the reason for this response was<br />embarrassment at the thought of going back to the Board with a recommendation not to go<br />ahead with a project which had already been named after Old Mutual's Chairman.<br />"The lowest tender was accepted, construction commenced and Werdmuller Centre opened in<br />1974".<br />In 1990, Stuart-Findlay was appointed Provincial Property Manager for the Cape, Natal<br />and Namibia. As part of his portfolio, he took over the management of the Werdmuller<br />Centre. By then, he had already managed Cavendish Square for a number of years. He<br />writes: "...the contrast between the performances of the two buildings was startling. Tenants<br />and shoppers could not relate to Werdmuller and it had acquired the nickname „Weirdmuller<br />Centre.. Upper-income shoppers used Cavendish Square and middle-income customers used<br />Kenilworth Centre. Many attempts had been made to rectify the inherent design faults at<br />Werdmuller but none of them worked:<br />. A completely fitted out restaurant had been installed opening onto the first floor patio<br />above the Main Road, but this had failed to attract successful tenants.<br />. The central mall had been roofed in to prevent the rain penetration in the winter which<br />made the sloping malls extremely slippery. I was told that the theory of the original mall<br />design was that rising heat would prevent rain penetration, but of course this had not<br />worked.<br />. The restaurant and a number of individual shops in the upper mall had been incorporated<br />into a large furniture store in an attempt to fill vacant space and to create a draw card<br />tenant. The design of a larger retail space of this nature proved difficult as each of the<br />small shops had been built on a separate level. The furniture store moved out and the<br />space is currently occupied as a church on Sundays only.<br />. An additional link had been built to join the first floors of the separate front and rear<br />sections of the building. The link was built through an existing shop which reduced<br />lettable area, and was constructed as members of the public entering Werdmuller from<br />the Main Road could never find Claremont Post Office which was on the first floor of the<br />back section of the building. The Post Office eventually moved out.<br />. To fill vacant space, a number of shops on the basement level had been joined together<br />to create Cafda Bookshop which could only be let at a rent which barely covered the<br />operating costs of the shop.<br />. The lack of parking was a disincentive to shoppers and tenants.<br />. The numerous entrances to the building created a major security problem and deterred<br />customers from visiting.<br />. Net income generated by the centre was so low or even negative that it was impossible<br />to value the building on the normal capitalised net income basis and it had to be<br />assessed on the theoretical value of the land only.<br />Stuart-Findlay concludes his report as follows:<br />"As a retail design concept and as an investment, Werdmuller Centre has been an utter failure. It has inherent design faults which cannot be rectified. In my opinion there was always an<br />arrogance in the concept that the building would always attract customers to the shops because<br />it was so different. It defied all the normal criteria for successful retail design and unfortunately it has never succeeded. It stands today virtually empty in the centre of a potentially highly<br />successful urban renewal scheme. It is clearly inhibiting the redevelopment of the vital<br />Claremont transport hub and should be demolished as soon as possible".<br />Ballard19 in his report of 12 November 2007 updates Stuart-Findlay.s report. To him,<br />what is of key relevance was that the returns that were considered marginal in the<br />1970.s have remained so and have in fact, worsened.<br />The following is a summary of the eight reasons he advances as to why the Centre has<br />not been able to perform as would be expected of any commercial investment:<br />. The building has a very low efficiency – 52% compared to the industry standard<br />of 80%. This has required achieving high rentals to offset operating costs and<br />amortisation of investment.</p><p align="left"><br />19 Bruce Ballard is a qualified Quantity Surveyor, now employed by the OMIGPI, as a Deal<br />Originator on the Business Development Team</p><p align="left"><br />. The Centre was planned to use only 10 750m² of the potential usable area of<br />18 500m², significantly precluding achieving an acceptable return.<br />. "One of the fundamentals of retail design is to ensure that tenants have clear sight lines<br />for shoppers to be able to see the stores which are not located directly on the busy<br />circulation routes". The Werdmuller Centre.s system of entrances and ramps has<br />resulted in a lack of „visual permeability.. Shoppers have stayed away and<br />tenants have been unable to trade effectively. There was a lack of connectivity<br />between the two buildings, and even the construction of a bridge (to provide<br />access to the Post Office), failed to improve circulation.<br />. The design precluded providing for a significant anchor tenant which would have<br />provided the purpose for shoppers to visit the centre, who in turn would have<br />sustained the small line shops. Centre managers have been forced to lease out<br />larger spaces at low rentals and this has precluded implementation of a<br />considered tenant strategy.<br />. Although easily accessed by train, bus and taxi, the centre could not offer<br />convenience (i.e. car access and parking) to the higher income shoppers that<br />were required to sustain the tenants that would keep the centre profitable. Only<br />15 on-site bays were provided, as opposed to the 584 that would normally be<br />provided in a centre of that size. The adjacent area has lacked a stable supply of<br />secure parking, and in any event, higher-income shoppers require on-, not off-site<br />parking.<br />. As has been previously stated, the design of the centre resulted in shoppers not<br />supporting the original tenant mix and over time whatever strategic tenant mix<br />there was has had to give way to a series of ad-hoc retailers, either very shortterm<br />or monthly. This has precluded the provision of a pleasant experience for<br />shoppers.<br />. A successful retail centre must provide shoppers with a quality shopper<br />experience: convenience, security, style, the right tenant mix, and first class<br />management. The Werdmuller Centre is lacking all of these and so provides a<br />poor shopper experience; this translates into poor financial performance.<br />. Today 4 114m² of retail space is occupied and 2 083m² is vacant; 72m²of office<br />space is occupied and 1 902m² is vacant; 1 278m² of storage space is occupied<br />and 837m² vacant, which translates to an overall occupancy of only 53 %.<br />Ballard analyses Annual Revenue, Total Expenses, Retained Earnings/Loss for the<br />Year, and Average Rental/m² for the Centre for the period 200 to 2007. The resultant<br />picture is not good for the shareholder, with the total asset average rental yield growth at<br />4%, as opposed to the above 25% that is being experienced elsewhere in this asset<br />class.<br />Today and this has been the case from before 2000, the value of the property lies in the<br />market value of the land less cost of demolition. The building has no commercial value.<br />It is estimated that the land is worth R50 million.<br />12.9 The socio-economic impact of the building on the Claremont CBD<br />Annexure D is a letter from Mr Chris Drummond, Chairman of the Claremont<br />Improvement District Company. In this he writes:<br />"The impact of the CIDC's operations in conjunction with the City Council and the South<br />African Police Force, Metropolitan Police and private security companies, has been well<br />documented and the successes have resulted in a significantly cleaner and safer<br />Claremont CBD than was the case prior to the commencement of operations in 2000.<br />The CIDC, however, identified together with their various partner organisations, a<br />particularly acute problem area for safety and security which was in the immediate<br />environment surrounding the railway station precinct which included the informal taxi<br />rank area and bus staging area. The issues identified and documented at the various<br />inter-organisational forums which CIDC hosted, can be summarised as follows:<br />a) Criminal activity involving inter alia, drug trafficking, dealing in counterfeit and<br />stolen goods, common assault robbery and rape.<br />b) Littering<br />c) Public drunkenness<br />d) Various forms of public nuisance and disorderly behaviour<br />"The City Council together with CIDC formed a partnership which has resulted in the<br />development of a combination of public/private capital projects which will total some<br />R50million when completed. This expenditure has seen:<br />. the relocation and redevelopment of the Claremont Clinic,<br />. the expropriation and demolition of various buildings to permit the construction of<br />a new taxi rank together with a nearby taxi holding area,<br />. a new bus station designed to deal with the forthcoming articulated bus<br />transport system, and<br />. the construction and design of the Claremont Boulevard Road which will<br />alleviate traffic congestion on the Claremont Main Road and divert a large<br />element of public transport away from the congested main spine infrastructure<br />towards the railway line.<br />"The construction of the capital projects in the immediate environs of the Claremont<br />railway station which straddle the Werdmuller Centre to the south, north and east, will<br />be operational by December 2007 and fully completed by the end of the first quarter of<br />2008.<br />"The massive positive benefit from a safety and public hygiene perspective is, however,<br />directly and unquestionably diminished by virtue of the continued existence of the<br />Werdmuller Centre. The Werdmuller Centre unfortunately remains a haven for criminal<br />activity, anti-social behaviour and public nuisance during large parts because of the<br />lay-out and configuration of the public walkway areas. These traverse the building and<br />are incapable of being secured without consequently hampering the safety of persons<br />within the building.<br />"A recent report tabled earlier this year from the Claremont Police Station Commissioner<br />is enclosed supporting unequivocally our view that this building should be demolished in<br />the interests of public safety and security.<br />"In conclusion, not only is the Werdmuller Centre a haven for criminal and anti-social<br />behaviour, but also in its current dilapidated state it is unquestionably retarding the<br />prospects for large scale urban renewal and regeneration within the immediate vicinity<br />and is unquestionably creating a property 'blight'. The CIDC, therefore, unreservedly<br />supports the application by the building's owners, in respect of its application for a<br />demolition permit".<br />Annexure E is the report from JA Vearey, Office of the Station Commissioner SA Police<br />Service, Claremont, referred to by Drummond. Vearey.s office assessed criminality<br />directly connected with the Werdmuller Centre for the period 1 January 2002 to 26<br />February 2007.<br />The Commissioner writes: "It is noteworthy that compared to other buildings in CBD, the<br />Werdmuller Centre is proportionally associated with the largest increases in Theft (179), Theft<br />out of motor vehicle (60), Theft of motor vehicle (23), Drug related crime (112), Armed Robbery<br />(25), Common Robbery (38), Assault GBH (25) and Common Assault (48) for the period under<br />review. In addition to the above-mentioned, SAPS reports on the Werdmuller Centre, indicate<br />that its infrastructure is used by street drug dealers who supply clients at night clubs in the CBD<br />as a base and storage facility. Several drug pedlars arrested on the premises with large<br />quantities of cannabis, „tik. and mandrax attest to this reality.<br />"Furthermore, the centre itself is often used as a hiding place for street robbers and shoplifters<br />when pursued by the SAPS. Arresting such suspects in the Centre often becomes a personnel<br />intensive task because the design of this building with its maze-like passage ways and<br />numerous exits afford such suspects a tactical advantage while we have to withdraw SAPS<br />personnel deployed in other sectors to perform a single arrest." The Station Commissioner<br />concludes his letter with: "It would therefore be in our interest if the demolition of Werdmuller<br />Centre is expedited."<br />The NHRA specifically refers to social and economic development.20 In addition Section<br />38 (3)(d) of the NHRA requires that the impact of the development on heritage<br />resources relative to the sustainable social and economic benefits to be derived from the<br />development should be evaluated. It is put forward that the demolition of the building<br />would facilitate the redevelopment of a critically important part of Claremont, unlocking<br />the potential of a large but currently under-utilised commercial site. This would create<br />jobs during construction of a new complex and future job opportunities for people<br />working there. The City.s rates income would be significantly increased.<br /></p><p align="left">20 National Heritage Resources Act, 1999, Section 5(7)(d).<br /><br />13. PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION<br />Public consultation has taken two forms: An independent opinion survey of professionals<br />and non-professionals, and an open meeting with the Institute for Architecture, and other<br />invitees.</p><p align="left"><br />13.1 The Opinion Surveys<br />This submission has embarked on an unprecedented effort to canvass opinions of<br />professionals and non-professional on the building. The professionals were broken<br />down into four categories: Architects (20), Urban Designers (10) and Heritage<br />Professionals (10). The Çommunity. consisted of Werdmuller users (25), shop owners<br />(25), informal traders(15), and passers- by (35). The professionals responded to a<br />telephonic survey set of questions, the community were interviewed in the vicinity of the<br />Werdmuller Centre.<br />The survey was conducted by Nick Green and Annexure F contains his summary of the<br />results of the various professional and public opinion surveys. The following are the<br />main findings:<br />. Three-quarters of the professionals and half of the community said that they knew a<br />great deal or quite a lot about the Werdmuller Centre. A majority of both samples felt<br />that the Centre is neither an attractive nor a useful building<br />. Three-quarters of the professionals but only 4 out of 10 of the community consider that<br />the Centre is an important building.<br />. Opinions as to whether the Werdmuller Centre will play a useful part in<br />the future of Claremont are divided:<br />* About a quarter think that it will play a useful part - because<br />it is central and near transport<br />* A third think that it will play a useful part only if it is<br />redeveloped/has a facelift/has a better tenant mix<br />* A third think that it will not play a useful part – because it is<br />impractical, needs to be demolished, or is dull/old/ugly, while<br />* One in 10 had no opinion on its future part in Claremont.<br />What has to be of significance is that the majority of both samples felt that the building<br />is neither an attractive nor a useful building.<br /><br />13.2 Engaging directly with the Institute for Architecture<br />As is required by the NHRA, a meeting was requested with the Heritage Committee of<br />the Institute for Architecture. Due to the controversy that was inevitable with the<br />proposed demolition of a building by such an architect, the Institute circulated widely an<br />invitation to the meeting, and the meeting that took place was an open meeting, and was<br />held at 17h30 on 5 December.<br />A full record of the meeting is being prepared and will be included with the final report.<br />What can be recorded at this stage is that there were numerous speakers who argued<br />for the retention and rehabilitation of the building. The arguments centered on the<br />perceived qualities of the building, and its importance as architectural history, and its<br />cultural, social and urbanistic heritage significance. That the building had been and still<br />was a commercial failure was considered by the speakers as irrelevant. It was claimed<br />that it was possible to recycle the building to accommodate new, mixed-uses, even if<br />these would require considerable internal remodeling and even partial demolition. No<br />suggestions were made by the speakers regarding what were the elements that should<br />be kept if the design integrity was to be retained. Old Mutual Properties was accused of<br />not maintaining the building adequately and of not securing a tenant mix sufficient to act<br />as a draw for shoppers.</p><p align="left"><br />14. CONCLUSIONS ON SIGNIFICANCE<br />The central issue is whether the Werdmuller Centre is a place of such cultural<br />significance/heritage resource that it must be conserved and declared a national<br />heritage site. Would its demolition leave the Claremont CBD, Cape Town, and South<br />Africa the poorer? The NHRA also requires that significance must be weighed up<br />against sustainable socio-economic benefits of the proposed re-development.<br />The definition of "cultural significance" in the NHRA states that it „means aesthetic,<br />architectural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, linguistic or technological value or<br />significance.. In terms of the NHRA, it is the responsibility of the local authority to<br />integrate heritage resource management into their spatial planning frameworks. At the<br />time of preparation of a spatial development plan, the planning authority must compile<br />an inventory of heritage resources, and submit the inventory to HWC. The previous City<br />of Cape Town during the 1980s and 90s compiled inventories throughout the city, and<br />these assessed heritage significance. The City has yet to submit an inventory to HWC<br />as required in terms of Section 30 of the Act. The Werdmuller Centre is, therefore,<br />unlisted and unprotected. The Act makes provision for communities to compile and<br />submit inventories of significance, and one would have expected the Institute for<br />Architecture to have initiated such an inventory to record their own roster of 20th century<br />buildings that they deem significant.<br />Looking at Section 3 of the NHRA and its various criteria, it is of the utmost significance<br />that the only formal conservation study that has evaluated the Werdmuller Centre as<br />part of a comprehensive evaluation of the Claremont area and others contiguous to it<br />concluded that the building was not of conservation significance.<br />The conservation study that includes the Werdmuller Centre and the area surrounding it<br />is that prepared by Todeschini & Japha for the City of Cape Town covering Newlands,<br />Claremont, Kenilworth and Wynberg (1994). They not only listed historically significant<br />buildings but contemporary buildings as well. Listed were the three Santos buildings –<br />the Stekhoven House at Ohlsson.s Way, the Townhouses at Rowan Avenue and the<br />Block of Flats at the corner of Main and Scott Roads, and one by Julian Elliott, Elliot<br />House at Pembroke Lane.<br />That the Japha/Todeschini study did not deem the Werdmuller Centre worthy of being<br />listed as a Significant Building or worthy of proclamation must be accepted for the<br />informed indictment that it is. Professors Todeschini and Japha worked closely with<br />Uytenbogaardt as fellow academics so its omission cannot be seen simply as an<br />oversight. Todeschini at one stage worked in Uytenbogaardt.s office. The omission<br />certainly also illustrates the hugely divergent attitudes towards the building as it is clear<br />that a section of the architectural community does regard the building as significant.<br />This study has tried to establish the intrinsic, comparative and contextual significance of<br />the building. To do this, it has examined the origins of the building both in terms of the<br />landowner.s intentions for the use of the land, and those of the architect they selected to<br />undertake the design. The building was one of the first projects undertaken by Old<br />Mutual as a commercial property investment, together with the Montebello Apartments<br />in Newlands (development having previously been confined to providing housing for OM<br />staff).<br />A description has been provided outlining how the Werdmuller Centre was conceived of<br />as an alternative to the inwardly-focused, formulaic shopping centre. It sought to<br />harness the passing pedestrians using the railway station, and bus and taxi termini,<br />focusing the buildings various frontages to the streets and creating a network of internal<br />ramped walkways. At the same time, it was artistic architecture inspired, according to<br />Uytenbogaardt, by Le Corbusier, during what Uytenbogaardt acknowledged was a<br />period of „infatuation. (Lange, opus cit). The building certainly is a significant art object,<br />a sculptural tour de force, and has architectural and cultural history significance.<br />However, as „art as architecture., it proved from inception to be non-functional,<br />impractical and a commercial failure; composition and character took precedence over<br />programme, form over function.<br />The following is a summary of its failures as a commercial building:<br />* Underuse of available bulk limited commercial return: The Werdmuller Centre<br />uses only 58% of available bulk. The Centre was planned to use only 10 750m² of<br />the potential usable floor area of 18 500m². (The site is 6 225m², coverage is<br />100%, permissible bulk is 3.7 and there is a 7-storey height restriction). This<br />under use has significantly precluded achieving an acceptable return.<br />* Very poor retail GLA efficiency: The Centre was designed with an excessive<br />amount of public walkway, mall and light well areas. The retail Gross Lettable<br />Area (GLA) to Gross Building Area (GBA) of only 52% of the total building; 28%<br />less than today.s standard efficiency of 80%. This required the complex to<br />generate high rentals to offset operating costs and to pay for the amortisation of<br />the cost of the land and building.<br />* Incorrect programmatic assumptions: The programmatic assumptions about<br />the nature of retailing in that part of Claremont were wrong – upper income<br />retailing was not going to work in an area patronised predominantly by low<br />income earners using the bus and taxi termini and the railway station.<br />* Commuters do not make for shoppers that will sustain retailing such as was<br />provided in the Werdmuller Centre, and which also failed in Cape Town.s CBD<br />(the Golden Acre, Sun Galleria, Mutual Arcade, etc.). *The assumption that shoppers would be prepared to negotiate the system of<br />ramps to undisclosed destinations was wrong. Shoppers have resisted its complex layout (its internal circulation of ramps and spaces) and the lack of weather protection to the ramps. The design contradicted one of the fundamentals of retail design, which is to ensure that tenants have clear sight lines for shoppers to be able to see the stores that are not located directly on the<br />busy circulation routes.<br />* On-site parking is totally inadequate: The number of parking bays in the<br />basement of the building was totally inadequate for the amount of shop and office<br />space, reducing obtainable rentals; 15 bays were provided for tenants and none<br />for shoppers. A centre of that size required at least 584 bays. Upper income<br />shoppers were, therefore, precluded from shopping there. As there is no other<br />parking available in close proximity as was the case of Mutual Heights this<br />precludes re-cycling options.<br />* There was a serious lack of consulting retail discernment: Insufficient space<br />was provided in the site fronting onto Main Road for an anchor tenant. It proved<br />not possible to secure the department store tenant for which the design made<br />provision fronting onto the Railway Station. The lack of a draw-card tenant<br />severely impacted on the small shops who were the tenants of the centre.<br />* The design of the building made it difficult to adjust the retail areas to new<br />patterns of retailing. Critically for the success of the centre, it was not possible to<br />provide sufficient space for an anchor tenant to act as a draw. Over time the A<br />and B grade shops have given way to C and D, and increasingly, to vacancies.<br />There are today only 20 tenants, occupying about 50% of the available space.<br />* The design of the building to the Main Road placed a blank circulation core on the<br />most important corner, blanking out the spaces behind. Much of the rest of the<br />Main Road frontage was left open with the street „bleeding. into the building as an<br />extension of the urban space. The retail areas were set back and difficult to see.<br />Actual retail space on Main Road was less than 40% of the available frontage.<br />* The building could not provide the shopper experience – convenience, security,<br />style and tenant mix, that together with being well run - makes for a successful<br />centre.<br />* Technologically inflexible, difficult if not impossible to adapt: The building.s<br />construction of poured in place concrete and brick infill is inflexible and unable to<br />be adjusted to changing technological demands; providing for today.s „smart..<br />building need is impossible. Its built-form specificity has resisted refinement,<br />adaptation and correction of its faults.<br />* Essential alterations have defaced the building: The building has been altered<br />over time to counter design and construction deficiencies. These were not<br />designed by Uytenbogaardt and have defaced the original design. Given that<br />most of these alterations were made to correct design and construction faults the<br />changes are to some extent irreversible.<br />* Poor commercial return affected maintenance affordability: The building is<br />expensive to maintain and its current state of decay is considered by its owners<br />to be beyond affordable redemption. The progressive lack of a return on the<br />building has led to a minimum maintenance approach. The building.s condition<br />today is testimony to this.<br />* The building has no commercial value: The „book value. of Erf 25574 is today<br />(and has been for over a decade) limited to the site less the cost of demolition -<br />the building has no ascribable commercial value. The site value is an estimated<br />R50 million.<br />* A building perceived to be of dubious attractiveness and use: It has to be<br />significant that the majority of the opinion samples of professionals and the public<br />felt that the building was neither an attractive nor a useful building. Non-architects<br />react negatively to the aesthetic of the building. Uytenbogaardt recognised its<br />harshness.<br />* A building impossible to secure: Perhaps the most serious deterrent to<br />retaining the building is that it is impossible physically to secure, irrespective of<br />the uses to which it might be put. Today, its convoluted nooks and crannies have<br />made the building unsafe for people who work in it and who walk through it;<br />according to the Police it is a haven for criminals – a hiding place for robbers and<br />shoplifters, and for street drug dealers. The Werdmuller Centre was designed in a<br />different age – one in which personal security issues did not feature. That age<br />regrettably, is no longer with us.<br />The sad reality is that the building has never been commercially viable. It has always<br />produced a negative financial return. Occupancy of the retail and office space available<br />is at only 51%.<br />"It is not possible to visit the building over the years and not come away with a deep sense of<br />sadness. A dream that an enormously skilful architect wanted to bring to bear, was not matched<br />by consulting retailing acumen during the design phase, and bought into and supported for the<br />long haul by an enlightened client. Uytenbogaardt defended the building by saying that in other<br />parts of the world it would be successful, or that given time, people would learn how to use the<br />building. This approach does not play well in the 21st century."21<br />Opinion on the conservation-worthiness of the building, i.e. its importance as part of the<br />cultural landscape of Claremont and Cape Town, is clearly divided. The Opinion Survey<br />of professionals and non-professionals concluded that three-quarters of the professionals<br />and half of the community said that they knew a great deal or quite a lot about the<br />Werdmuller Centre. Three-quarters of the professionals but only 4 out of 10 of the<br />community consider that the Centre is an important building. A majority of both samples<br />felt that the Centre is neither an attractive nor a useful building. Some architects and<br />urban designers are arguing strongly for its preservation irrespective of its lack of<br />commercial viability. Indeed, they argue that the operative criteria should be the<br />significance of the building in South African architectural and social histories and its<br />importance in the city.s cultural landscape.<br />This criterion is unacceptable to Old Mutual, who argue that their shareholders are<br />entitled to a positive financial return from the site, given more than 30 years of negative<br />commercial return on investment.<br />The question is being asked: Why can the building not be restored and reused, as there<br />are numerous overseas precedents of 20th century buildings being successfully<br />recycled?<br />An article in the August 11/12, 2007 Financial Times22, discussed the world-wide threats<br />to buildings of the 1960.s, 70s and even the 1980s.It observed that one problem was<br />that modernist architecture could be hard to love, and hard to defend. Among the<br />examples given of buildings under threat were hitherto iconic buildings such as the<br />Boston City Hall (1968), the Nakagin Capsule Tower in Tokyo (1972), and many others.<br />Examples were cited of buildings by Paul Rudolph and Edward Durrell Stone, and many<br />others that have already gone. The concern for the potential or actual loss of 20th<br />Century buildings was echoed in the March/April Heritage-focused issue of Architecture<br />South Africa.<br />"To understand where we are, we need to be able to encounter the architecture of the 20th<br />century in an everyday setting, not preserved in aspic, but thoughtfully adapted. If we lose the<br />bulk of our modernist architecture, as seems likely, we lose a layer of our cities and a part of<br />ourselves."24<br />The ability to adapt is the key. In his book HOW BUILDINGS LEARN: What happens<br />after they.re built, Stewart Brand put forward the proposition that buildings adapt best<br />when constantly refined and reshaped by their occupants, and that architects can mature from being artists of space to become artists of time25. What Brand argued for<br />was an „adaptive architecture.. He argued that in a healthy building, maintenance,<br />correction of faults, and improvements all blend together. The Werdmuller Centre over<br />the short period of just over thirty years has resisted refinement, adaptation and<br />correction of its faults and been difficult and expensive to maintain. Certainly, to now<br />build in security to the access points and internal ramp, and walkway system, would<br />negate one of the key formative and distinguishing concepts of the building.<br />By contrast, Uytenbogaardt.s Bonwit Clothing Factory building is at the time of writing<br />being altered into a residential/commercial complex; part of a larger development called<br />Upper Eastside (where, according to the brochure, you will „Live, Work and Play.). The<br />original building has been altered to provide 139 apartments, the 3.4m high industrial<br />ceilings retained, exposed face-brick used as a feature. The lower three floors are<br />commercial and the upper, residential. Clearly, the Bonwit was inherently adaptable, the<br />Werdmuller, regrettably, is considered by its owners not.<br />Lange wrote that the Werdmuller Centre was an „early. building of Uytenbogaardt.s and<br />one from which he moved on (Opus cit). That Uytenbogaardt did so can be seen in his<br />decision not to include the building in the article to be published in "Spazio & Societa"<br />referred to by Vio in his monograph (see section 12.5 of this report). Uytenbogaardt,<br />according to Nuttal, was aware of the building.s deficiencies and of peoples. antipathy to<br />it (opus cit).<br /><br /></p><p align="left">21 Louw, Etienne C. 2007. Essay entitled: The Werdmuller Centre. RIP. Whither the UCT Indoor Sports Centre? This appended as Annexure G.<br />22 Heathcote, Edwin. 2007. Modernism meets brutalism. Financial Times. Page 6, August 11/12<br />2007</p><p align="left"><br />In sum, one can only conclude that the NHRA criteria e) and f) cannot be applicable to<br />the Werdmuller Centre in its present altered and nearly derelict condition. Nor can the<br />CPIA criteria I. (a building that is of national or local historical importance or association)<br />and 2. (A building that is a rare or outstanding example of its period), be applicable.<br />Similarly, this applies to the CPIA Criteria 4 and 5: Buildings which contribute to a fine<br />urban setting or lend character to a locality, and which contribute or enhance the quality<br />of a square or other space of urban significance on which they abut. The Werdmuller<br />Centre does not contribute to a fine urban setting, nor lend (positive) character to its<br />locality. Nor does it enhance the quality of the spaces that border it.<br />Can a building be termed „great architecture. when it does not work for the purposes for<br />which it was intended and when it has not worked since its inception? While Vio.s<br />description of Uytenbogaardt.s work as „Timeless., can be said to apply to some of his work, particularly the later examples, it cannot be said to apply to the Werdmuller<br />Centre. It, by virtue of the faults described above, has to be categorised as „Timebound..<br />In its present degraded state, the building is exerting a severe blighting influence on the<br />Claremont CBD that abuts it, both by its physical presence and by the criminal activities<br />it supports.<br />.In a sense, it is with some relief that one consigns this magnificent failure to demolition, and<br />that it be a building that is housed in memory and photographs for the spirited debate it<br />engendered. It made South African architects look at their milieu, and how one could throw light<br />upon an oppressed people, how one could uplift people through architecture and how to make<br />proud spaces that celebrate the human spirit." (Louw, Opus cit)<br />Our conclusion is that notwithstanding its origins and the stature of its designer, there<br />are no grounds for denying the issuing of a demolition permit. Demolition of the<br />Werdmuller Centre would pave the way for Claremont CBD to continue with the process<br />of urban regeneration that is currently underway in its immediate vicinity – to the benefit<br />of the area as a whole and the people who use it. Its demolition would not leave South<br />Africa and Cape Town the poorer.<br /><br /></p><p align="left">24 Heathcote; opus cit<br />25 Stewart Brand, 1994. HOW BUILDINGS LEARN: What happens after they.re built. Phoenix<br />Illustrated, London.</p><p align="left"><br />15. PROPOSED GRADING<br />It is put forward that at best the building can be considered to be of Grade 3B<br />significance in terms of the criteria for intrinsic and associational significance as set out<br />in the Interim Grading System:<br />. Fabric is partially intact (past damage is to some extent reversible)<br />. Some elements of construction are authentic<br />. Rare example of its type and form<br />. Fabric clearly illustrates the key uses and roles of a place over time.<br />. Highly significant association with an historic person<br />. Visual-spatial landmark within a place<br />. Some association with public memory</p><p align="left"><br />16. RECOMMENDATIONS<br />1) It is recommended that the application for demolition be granted.<br />2) In the case of the demolition of the Werdmuller Centre, the need for rigorous<br />recordal is self-evident.<br />. Accordingly, it is also recommended that, given the quality of the formmaking<br />of the original building and the stature of its designer, that the<br />building be fully recorded according to the criteria of DOCOMOMO (The<br />International Working Party for the Documenting and Conserving of Buildings, Sites and<br />Neighbourhoods of the Modern Movement).</p>Werdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4018594746556350872.post-69464368332173726492007-12-18T23:37:00.000-08:002007-12-18T23:43:01.734-08:00Werdmuller Centre - Notes by Laura RobinsonWERDMULLER CENTRE, MAIN ROAD, CLAREMONT<br />PHASE ONE HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT:<br /><br />NOTES MADE AT A PRESENTATION MADE ON THE PHASE ONE HIA FOR THE WERDMULLER CENTRE AT THE OFFICES OF THE CAPE INSTITUTE FOR ARCHITECTURE ON WEDNESDAY 5 DECEMBER 2007<br />________________________________________________________________________<br /><br />PRESENT:<br /><br />Attendance register attached as separate document<br /><br />The presentation was made by the heritage consultants Peter de Tolly (PdT), Henry Aikman (HA), Andrew Berman (AB) at the Cape Institute for Architecture on Wednesday 5 December 2007. No documentation had been circulated prior to the meeting.<br /><br />Convener Laura Robinson (LR) introduced the consultant team and welcomed everyone present. LR explained that the purpose of the meeting was to obtain comment and input on the Phase One Heritage Impact Assessment for the Werdmuller Centre. It was noted that the owner of the property Old Mutual wished to apply for the demolition of the building and that Heritage Western Cape had requested that a presentation be made to the Heritage Committee of the Cape Institute for Architecture. It was also noted that, as the site exceeded 5000m² in extent in terms of Section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, an HIA was required; this will be submitted to Heritage Western Cape. Consultation with I&AP’s forms an important part of such an assessment. <br /><br />Due to the widespread interest that had been expressed in the potential loss of the building the invitation had been extended to include the entire membership of the CIA as well as architects and colleagues who are not members who had approached the Institute with concerns.<br /><br />The presentation was then made by HA and PdT. The details of the verbal presentation are not recorded here, the draft document will be made available as soon as it has been received from the consultants. As a brief summary the following points (amongst others) were made:<br /><br />HA presented the background to the demolition application, referring to the process required for such an application to Heritage Western Cape. He stressed that this presentation was important in order to obtain comment and input on the value of the building from a specialized groups of professionals (architects). He noted that the building had been ungraded in the Todeschini and Japha survey of Claremont carried out for the City of Cape Town although four other late 20th Century buildings had been listed. The Werdmuller Centre could be classified as significant in terms of the criteria in Section 3 of the NHRA because of the following criteria“Its importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group; Its importance in demonstrating a high creative or technical achievement at a particular period, Its strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organisation of importance in the history of South Africa”; Reference was also made to the criteria developed by John Rennie in the 1983 Catalogue of Buildings of Central Cape Town, in which buildings are identified according to a range of criteria. These include:<br /><br />Buildings or sites which are of national or local historic importance or association, Buildings which are rare or outstanding architectural examples of their period,<br />Buildings which contribute to or enhance the quality of a square or other space of significance on which they abut.<br /><br />In the opinion of the consultants the Werdmuller Centre clearly fell into several of these categories of criteria.<br /><br />Considerable time was spent on the economic viability and sustainability of the building, and the problems experienced by the owners in maintaining a successful tenant mix. It was noted that the condition of the building had become seriously degraded, due to a lack of maintenance and inappropriate tenanting.<br /><br />PdT made reference to the changing urban framework of Claremont and the new demands in terms of commercial and retail opportunities. Comparisons were drawn between Cavendish Square and the Werdmuller Centre – both developed by Old Mutual. He also explained that a public opinion survey had been undertaken by an independent consultant. Opinions ranging from the general public to architects and other built environment professionals had been sourced. Three-quarters of the professionals and half of the community said that they knew a great deal or quite a lot about the Werdmuller Centre. A majority of both samples felt that the Centre is neither an attractive nor a useful building<br />In conclusion the consultants were of the opinion that although the building was of some heritage significance its inherent design faults and consequent lack of economic viability outweighed arguments for the buildings retention.<br /><br />INPUT FROM THE FLOOR<br /><br />After the presentation the floor was opened for questions and comments.<br />(These are reported here in summary form)<br /><br />LR: The HIA does not appear to contain a Statement of significance or a comparative analysis of the building with the major works of the architect.<br /><br />Martin Kruger (MK): Is of the opinion that this is an economic impact assessment and not a heritage impact assessment. The building is a modernist architectural masterpiece of an acknowledged master.<br /><br />Kevin Fellingham (KF): Articulated the value of the building as contemporary architectural heritage. Creative re-use is possible, sensitive alterations and additions are possible to make the building viable again. Quotes international examples of successful adaptive reuse.<br /><br />Ilze Wolff (IW): Asks what the building gives back to the urban environment of Claremont Main Road. There is a lack of imagination of how the building can be creatively reused.<br /><br />Piet de Beer (PdB): Building talks to the position of the site between transport hubs of station, bus and taxis with the Main Road.<br /><br />PdT responds: Considering the urban design issues of the site and the concept of adaptive reuse. What income level will the building/site serve?<br /><br />Dave Dewar (DD): Economics has nothing to do with heritage. Concept of the building was to act as a kind of souk to attract lower-income shoppers as they pass through it to the Main Road.<br /><br />Piet Louw (PL): It is an urban building which can have more than one kind of life. There is a generosity of public space which makes it attractive to the ‘smaller’ person. An urbanist argument should be used to retain the building.<br /><br />Steve Townsend (ST): Notes that the consultants are required in terms of the provisions of Section 38 to assess socio-economic factors.. He suggested that those wishing to save the building should first attempt to persuade the owners to reconsider their position and failing that persuade the provincial authority, Heritage Western Cape, that the cultural significance of the building is so great that they would over-ride the property rights of the owner.<br /><br />Ashley Lillie (AL): Concerned that development indicators are being formulated in the Phase One HIA. Need to decided on the significance of the building first.<br /><br />MK: Quoted examples of reuse. Also enquired as to what schemes have been developed for the site. HA replies that they (the consultants for the HIA) have not seen any schemes proposed.<br /><br />Cesar Basada (CB): Critical of how the building has been managed. Owner has been careless about the building as can be seen by the poor state, graffiti etc.<br /><br />Ricardo Sa (RS): Asked when the decision will be made on the demolition application. HA says that no date has been set but that it was intended to submit the HIA early in 2008.<br /><br />Hugo Helene (HH): need to consider the building within the urban dynamic of the city and the heritage of the building within the architecture of South Africa.<br /><br />Jean Nuttal (JN): Asked if anyone has approached the owner of the building (Old Mutual) about an alternative use for it. Vusi ? from Old Mutual was present at the meeting as an observer and to report back to the owner on the opinions and comments made during the meeting.<br /><br />Hans Niehaus (HN): Mentioned the background to Claremont as a place of forced removals. Argues that something can be given back to the area by providing a meeting place.<br /><br />Donald Parenzee (DP): Roelof was DP’s studio master in his third year at UCT. The building is provocative and always has been. It embodies ideas of the role of Claremont and copies the movement of people from the Cape Flats to Claremont. It is a statement of the ‘newer’ Cape Town. The HIA needs to be broader in terms of the development of Claremont, movement routes etc.<br /><br />Dawood Petersen (DP): Not an architect but says that architects need to be more proactive with the process.<br /><br />Imraan Ho-Yee (IH): Works with a retail development company. Elaborates on the requirements of retail, tenant mix. Owner of the building needs to be more innovative and look at the way Claremont is developing.<br /><br />PdT: Gives feedback on the public opinion survey that was undertaken, which indicates that the public value of the building is low.<br /><br />MK: States that it is a serious omission that the building was not identified in the Todeschini and Japha survey undertaken of the area.<br /><br />CONCLUSION<br /><br />There appeared to be general consensus in the meeting that the Werdmuller Centre is an important piece of architecture by a recognized master – Roelof Uytenbogaardt, and that it should not be demolished but that a new use should be found for it.<br />It was agreed that a statement of significance for the building should be developed, this will help inform attitudes to the retention of the building.<br /><br />It was agreed that the Institute needs to formalize its response to the proposal for demolition and to the significance of the building. This should be independent of comments made on the phase One HIA. It was agreed that a smaller group would be specially convened to formalize the response. Persons should indicate their interest in being part of this group to the convener LR.<br /><br />The Phase One HIA will be circulated together with the notes made on the meeting as soon as possible.<br /><br />LR also invited interested persons from the floor to indicate their interest in becoming part of the workgroup busy with the identification of 20th century architectural heritage.<br /><br /><br />Laura Robinson<br />President: Cape Institute for ArchitectureWerdmuller Centrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05968729524391509219noreply@blogger.com0