CHAPTER 3: LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENTS
3.9 Privatisation of Public Space within a South African Context
54 3.8.2 The Privatisation of Public Space in Broad Gate Estate and Canary Wharf,
London
Broad Gate, is a development that is approximately 30 acres in size. It was purchased by British land companies and is managed by Broad Gate Estates. This company mostly deals with the management and privatisation of public estates. They ensure inner-city renewal and maintain city estates so as to allow for financial resources to be consistent for renewal and to avoid estate decay (Minton, 2006).
The Broad Gate Centre and Canary Wharf are among the initial developments and are a prime example of the privatisation of public space which was developed in the 1990s. Booms in the economy in the 1990s resulted in urban development for the purposes of economic development. Broad Gate and Canary Wharf were at the time the first key developments to redirect the needs of the new economy, as office space was also required to support the booms in the service sector and business (Minton, 2006).
In terms of the privatisation of public space for security; private security companies ensure surveillance by patrolling the estate, 24 hours a day (Minton, 2006). According to access rights, private security officers are not allowed to exclude citizens from using the public space although, as private property, they are permitted to use request removals of users of the space.
The public space has been designed to enhance the impacts of security; an inward-looking design permits it to be an enclave of public space which would only attract wealthy employees. The high-class techno buildings will appear attractive to the upper class business elite.
55 Discussed below are case study examples of public space contestations in South Africa.
Different precedent studies have been selected to illustrate the complexities faced within Public Spaces, due to external forces manipulating spaces through privatisation.
3.9.1 V and A Waterfront, Cape Town
The V&A Waterfront in Cape Town is one of South Africa‘s leading tourist destinations. It is claimed to be a public open space for people to visit and engage in entertainment and interaction with others, yet it is privately owned and, while access seems to be unrestricted and not controlled, this not the case. Public space is not accessible to all different types of people.
There are examples of cases of people being excluded from occupying public space in the city, and people feel that this is a matter of law as it is a violation of citizens‘ rights and their right to use the public space. An example of a local court case, in which exclusion of access to public spaces occurred and which has been referred to as a denial of rights of access or marginalisation and which was successfully challenged, is that of the Victoria & Alfred Waterfront v The Police Commissioner, Western Cape (Coggin, 2012).
Poor people who beg for money were frequently found to be occupying the public space.
Begging was, therefore, banned and this was seen as a violation of the right to access based on these people‘s socio-economic status. An interdict by the public was submitted to the Cape Town court against the Waterfront Company stating that they were in violations of people's rights. People of any status should be able to occupy public space at the Waterfront. And people should be able to occupy public space as they wish in such places, as public spaces are public for anyone in the city to visit (Coggin, 2012).
Citizen‘s rights encompass being able to visit any area of the city without being excluded or not permitted to visit a specific area. Globally, marginalisation in the inner-city results from the privatisation of public space, where spaces which are known to be public, are effectively under private control. Conditions or prices are attached to accessing such spaces and this ought not to be the case (Coggin, 2012).
According to the case:
The owners argued that the Waterfront is, in-fact, private property, even though the public were allowed to make use of it; this is in accordance with the contested
56 definitions of Public Space, is therefore a pseudo space, as the Waterfront company claimed that, through ownership, they accordingly had the right to exclude people from their property who they did not wish to have there.
The Court, however, pointed out that this argument was true only on paper. In reality, the Waterfront is an intensely public space. It contains, among others, a post office, a police charge office, public roads (Coggin, 2012). The court thereafter ruled that, in fact, the Waterfront was indeed a public space, and that, therefore, to limit people from accessing it would not only be in conflict with the constitutional rights of freedom of use and dignity which people are entitled to, but prohibiting access shows a blatant disregard for people and the poor ought not to be treated according to their status or race for that matter. The court stated that begging was vital to the livelihood of the two citizens in this case. The court further found that private property rights had to give way to their rights to life and dignity (Coggin, 2012).
In this case, the verdict ruled that the owners of public space cannot decide who accesses or uses the space which is open to the public. The discrimination of people on the basis of class, especially, is unacceptable. Even if the property belongs to private individuals, it has a public character, and it is thus incorrect for the owners to select who they allow to invade the public space. The court stated that this also applies to and has vital penalties concerning other
‗privately owned‘ properties that have purchased public space, which comprise developments with a new urbanism design and other gated suburbs, as well as any other municipality or private entity who intends to gentrify urban areas (Coggin, 2012).
3.9.2 Melrose Arch, Johannesburg
Melrose Arch is another example of a public space in South Africa which is privatised.
According to Murray:
It offers an appealing alternative to the sequestered ‗fortress city‘ approach that defines mega-project building schemes in the greater Johannesburg metropolitan region, Melrose Arch has done little to curb the deleterious effects spatial fragmentation and socio-cultural segregation of the urban landscape (2012:4).
It is a mixed use development on a commercial land use scheme which is driven for capital investment. It evokes marginalisation, as the space has been taken over to develop private-
57 capital interests over public use. Murray states that ―Melrose Arch is infused with ambivalence, paradox and contradiction‖, (Murray, 2013:3) as it is for the access of high-class citizens and as a public space, its architecture and target market is a pull factor for the wealthy where the poor or the ―other‖ are not allowed.
Melrose Arch‘s design seems to promote socio-cultural diversity for an inclusive contemporary urban life, but, in privatising this public space, it nurtures a narrowness and exclusivity inevitably reinforcing the existing spatial inequalities. Allen (2006) therefore states that these post-public places are ―accessible yet closed, inclusive yet controlled‖ (Allen 2006, 442). ―The registers of power that operate at Melrose Arch are more subtle, but no less insidious, than the hard-edged policing and management of fortified enclaves‖ (Allen 2006, 454).
In a case study on the privatisation of public space in South Africa, on the city of Johannesburg, citizens believe that their contact and interactions with people in a public space are vital for the inner city experience and livelihood (Murray, 2004). Citizenship is felt strongly through a person‘s physical presence in public spaces in the city (Landman, 2006).
People have a right to move about as they please, and thus the privatisation of these spaces causes marginalisation and denial of the rights to access and use the city by restricting people‘s rights to occupy places in which they can discover people of diversity and interact or socialise outside of their homes (Coggin, 2012).
In conclusion of the precedent studies section, these diverse examples, whether on a macro scale such as New York City, or a microcosm of water-front development such as the V&A Waterfront in Cape Town, display how public spaces within the built environment are controlled and privatised through different policies, mechanisms of development or private companies. There is a very fine line between public and private space if the public is excluded from the space. People or citizens should not have to lose their rights of access within a public space, although private companies develop urban renewal projects to revive or maintain public space.
It is also evident through South African precedent studies that, because there is a blurry line between public and private spaces, water-front projects are accused of being pseudo public spaces. These different examples from different world spaces offered an opportunity to
58 examine how mechanisms privatise public space and the challenges arising from the privatisation of space.