HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION IN SOUTH AFRICA
5.1. The origins of formal architectural education in South Africa
Up until the mid-19th century, architectural practice and education existed as completely regionally autonomous, under the influence of practicing architects who had trained abroad and returned to their respective regions in South Africa; there was no linkage between institutions of the different provinces in South Africa. There were two British influenced provinces, namely Natal and the Cape, and two Boer influenced provinces, namely Orange Free State and Transvaal. The architecture and architectural education foci of the different regions were heavily influenced by the respective architectural practitioners along with their training, architectural philosophies and methods. The profession was therefore defined by fragmented identities across the various provinces and regions.
During the Union Period of the early 1900s, however, a growing interest towards a unified architectural profession emerged, which sparked the initiation of formal discussions around education and practice. These discussions focused on architectural practice and architectural education, enabling a dialogue across the provinces of South Africa, which began in the form of conferences on architectural education. The seriousness of the concern for a unified profession was evident as it was the main focus of the 1923 Conference on Architectural Education which was held at the Technical College in Durban (www.artefacts.co.za/lexicon). The conference attracted delegates from across the country and from different sectors of the profession.
Conference delegates consisted of professional bodies and institutions of architectural training from the Cape, Transvaal (now known as Gauteng) and Natal (now known as KwaZulu-Natal).
Among the conference delegates was Professor Pearse of the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits), which was the only university in South Africa that offered an architecture course at the time. Professor Snape, a civil engineer with interest in architecture, represented the University of Cape Town (UCT) while Mr Martin, a senior lecturer in Fine Arts, represented the Natal Technical College, and its constituent body, the Durban School of Art was represented by Mr Oxley. The Union Government was also officially represented in order to engage with the concerns around architectural education at a national level (www.artefacts.co.za/lexicon). While the conference focused on architectural education, there was significant input from academics as well as the architectural profession in the form of practitioners. It is interesting to note that, during this period, architectural education was situated at different types of institutions, such as universities and
118 | P a g e colleges, and discussions around architectural education and the profession drew interest from members of other disciplines such as engineering and the arts.
The two major points of discussion at the 1923 conference were around the possibility of the formation of a federal educational body and the benefit of a professional publication on architectural education. Discussions led to a resolution that a Federal Council on Architectural Education be formalised. The constitution of the Federal Council subsequently defined its role as a co-ordinator of architectural education in South Africa while also having the authority to devise schemes for architectural education and examinations within the Union of South Africa. These schemes and proposals were forwarded to the relevant institutions and societies for their consideration (www.artefacts.co.za/lexicon). The first meeting of the Federal Council on Architectural Education, held in 1924 in Cape Town, agreed to recognise two standard models for courses in architecture, namely, the Diploma and the Degree. The extant diploma course of Wits and the degree course of UCT defined the standards for each model. The different foci of the two models were apparent; the degree model had a liberal arts focus as compared to the engineering and science focus of the diploma model.
The Transvaal, where Wits was located, constituted the largest distribution of architectural practitioners and training institutions. Transvaal was defined by two major cities, namely, Johannesburg as the economic centre of the country and Pretoria as the capital city. The issues, challenges and opportunities that this situation offered led to the Federal Council meeting with the Council of the Association of Transvaal Architects and the Board of Examiners in 1926, in order to discuss architectural education in the Transvaal. During this period, there were two sites of architectural education in the Transvaal, namely the Pretoria Technical College in the city of Pretoria and Wits University in Johannesburg. Pretoria Technical College did not have a course for the training of professional architects and therefore students wishing to pursue a career as professional architects undertook the Wits diploma course. This was due to the fact that there was no Chair of Architecture in Pretoria. Pearse proposed that successful students of the Pretoria Technical College be awarded the Wits diploma; a move which was initially opposed by the Minister of Education most probably on the grounds of the different focus and identity of the respective institutions. The Minister eventually gave consent in 1929 which then resulted in the collaboration of the newly established Institute of South African Architects and the Chapter of SA
119 | P a g e Quantity Surveyors, to create the Department of Architecture and Quantity Surveying at the Transvaal University College situated in Pretoria. This department was located in the Faculty of Science, under the headship of Professor Bell-John who was a Quantity Surveyor and Chief Engineer at the Public Works Department. In 1930 Bell-John and the renowned Pretoria-based architect Gerard Moerdyk, approached the Minister of Education to request that a Chair of Architecture be established at the University of Pretoria (UP). This proposal was opposed by the Transvaal Institute of Architects who argued that Wits was under-resourced and, that any such proposal may only be served to the Central Council. At a joint meeting between Wits and UP in 1931, it was resolved that the centre for Architecture be situated at Wits while Quantity Surveying be situated at UP. This decision was immediately ratified by the standing committee of the Central Council. The need for an architecture course at UP became convincing enough and the chair in Architecture was transferred from Wits to UP in 1943, thereby establishing the architectural course at UP. The two schools had inevitably influenced each other, however the programme at Wits was adopted and thereby guided the focus of the UP curriculum. The school of architecture developed over the next decade whereby the curriculum adapted to become more responsive to the Pretoria context, mainly due to the academic staff composition, predominantly of practitioners from Pretoria. This eventually led to the two schools developing their curricula autonomously and the UP curriculum defined its own focus and direction.
Architectural education in Natal was originally based at the Natal Technical College in which an architectural course was established in 1922, also under the sponsorship of Wits University. This relationship to Wits established a strong link between architectural education in Transvaal and Natal (www.artefacts.co.za/lexicon). The University of Natal, which was founded in the early 1900s, eventually broke away from the Natal Technical College as a separate entity in 1929 (d’Almaine et al 1997). Carter (2013) confirms that the Natal Technical College architecture programme subsequently moved to the Natal University College in 1933. The Natal University College later changed to the University of Natal and then to the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), as it is currently known.
The development of architectural education in both the Transvaal and Natal were initially based at technical colleges with a different focus to the liberal arts curriculum of UCT. However, as discussed, the architectural courses in the Transvaal and Natal moved into the respective
120 | P a g e universities; a move which changed the curricular nature of the respective courses. Wits played the leading role in the establishment of schools in Pretoria as well as Durban in Natal thereby significantly influencing the philosophies and the curricula foci of those schools. There were no other training centres for architecture in South Africa at the time, and the policy of the Central Council exercised caution in authorising the establishment of any new schools of architecture.
The shift of professional architectural training from the technical colleges entirely to universities, resulted in the university-based curriculum becoming the prevalent model for architectural education. The university model was supported by the Central Council who affirmed that they considered Universities as the ideal sites for architectural education; this opinion of the Council sparked strong concerns from the technical colleges and Government. Importantly, in the context of this research, the architectural profession raised concern mainly due to a vested interest in
‘second level architectural education’ for the training of architectural assistants, which traditionally happened at the technical colleges (www.artefacts.co.za/lexicon). The profession therefore viewed the training provided by technical colleges as supportive to the universities, rather than of equal status. The value of technical colleges extended beyond the architectural profession and played a vital role in technical skills training across many trades. The primary purpose of technical colleges was vocational skills training for specific industries, predominantly in the engineering and manufacturing sectors. These colleges were defined by their regional location and thereby provided skills in response to the regional needs of industry and the regional economies.
Architecture programmes at South African universities, on the other hand, were influenced and shaped by well-established international traditions rather than having any bearing on the need for regional skills development. Carter (2013:43) identifies the different inherited systems that shaped architectural education at the different universities in South Africa. UCT was characterised by a
‘compositional and fine art’ inclination, which suggested a Beaux Arts influence; the ‘building arts’ model at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU, formerly known as the University of Port Elizabeth) was based on the Bauhaus workshop system; while the ‘engineering with arts’ model of Wits related to the French ‘Ecole Polytechnique’ system adopted also by UP and Natal University. While universities seemingly had the option of exercising preference in their modes of education, the technical institutions had to serve very specific needs of the country’s economy and the requirements of the professions and industry.
121 | P a g e The distinctive divisions between academic universities and technical institutions remained a contentious issue in professional disciplines. The differentiation of training/educational institutions transcended the ambit of education and escalated as a means of political influence and control. During the colonial Union period, the various technical institutions became divided along racial lines, while universities remained largely inaccessible to historically disadvantaged people.
This was a deliberate outcome of the political ideology of the time, which aimed at controlling access to resources including the technical labour force. The division of training and educational systems therefore had both a technical/professional differentiation as well as a political agenda.
Afeti et al 2008 defined the binary system of education in South Africa, consisting of academic universities and technical institutions, as divisive and ‘technicist’. Ajayi et al (1966 cited in Afeti et al 2008) confirm that the University Act of 1916, enacted by the Union Government, established the ‘decolonised’ higher education system in South Africa. This led to the establishment of the University of South Africa (UNISA), Stellenbosch University, and UCT. Afeti et al, however, highlight that all subsequent higher education institutions, including technikons and colleges, continued to be segregated along racial lines until the demise of apartheid in 1994. Post 1994 realised broad level transformation of the higher education landscape and the previously distinct divisions between the two major types of higher education institutions, namely, universities and technikons, started to become increasingly permeable.
The change of Government from a nationalist dispensation, in which apartheid was promulgated, to a democratic dispensation in 1994, initiated transformation of many public-sector structures including higher education in South Africa. The need to respond to the socio-economic challenges of a new developing nation, during the late 1990s, saw increased political and financial pressure being exerted on the existing universities. Redress in higher education sought to promote equal access and strategies for accessibility to historically marginalised communities became one of the primary concerns of the democratic dispensation. Furthermore, the capacity and resourcing of the existing universities were under pressure due to an increase in demand for access to higher education by a large part of the population from historically disadvantaged communities. These considerations, among others, led the restructuring of higher education legislative frameworks.
One of the primary objectives of the transformation of higher education was to create a coherent structure, which would facilitate articulation of qualifications from different institutions and different levels of entry. The distinctive and divisive barriers between institutions of higher
122 | P a g e learning, henceforth, started to break down. The following section discusses the transformation of frameworks, polices and legislation that defines and impacts on the current state of architectural education at universities of technology.