This story covers the 2015 exchange trip between South African delegates from the SDI Network and the CAN Network in the Philippines.
Manila City
The Exchange
In 2015, a small delegation from the South African Shack Dwellers International Alliance (SASDIA) was sent to the 3rd Regional Community Architecture (CAN) Meeting & Workshop to experience first-hand the CAN Network in action in order to understand the workings of the network, learn from the CAN experience.
SDI Delegation in Manila
This delegation was made up of 3 professionals and three community members from the SASDIA and were chosen by the alliance for strategic leadership and capacity development to bring back home.
As a team, we were expected to try and understand how the CAN works, its practices and tools as well its members . This would be done during the working while the delegation would be exposed and learn from similar practitioners and community groups who are working on similar problems around the development of disadvantaged communities, such as in South Africa. Ideally we would learn valuable lessons from the CAN in regard to practices of community design and bring these home to South Africa.
Workshop Background:
The 3rd Regional CAN Regional Meeting & Workshop held was held this year in Manila, Philippines between June 16 – June 23 and conducted with the theme: “Together we CAN! People planning for future inclusive cities “
CAN Workshop Day 1
The workshop aimed to:
· Bring together local and international participants working in different countries in Asia and beyond to exchange and share experiences through community workshops.
· Provide concrete technical support to actual community initiatives through fieldwork in people centred heritage planning in Intramuros, Manila and city-wide development approach (CDA) in Muntinlupa City.
· Link with local universities
· Plan new collaborative future activities with multiple stakeholders to ensure long term change
Ultimately the workshop aimed to support the larger mission of the CAN Network which is to:
“..Create a platform to link architects, engineers, planners, universities and community artisans in Asia, who work with communities and believe that poor communities should play a central role in planning their communities, and in finding solutions to build better settlements and more inclusive cities. “
CAN Network Diagram
The Workshop:
The delegation arrived on the 15th, and was welcomed by the well organised and energetic CAN management team.
CAN Members from Bangladesh presenting
After an initial series of presentations on CAN and the various organisations that make up the network, individual organisations of the workshop were invited to present themselves and their work.
Site Visits – Intramuros
Site Visits – Intramuros Workshop
Intramuros Site Visit – Banana City
From here the next 2 days were spent taking the conference on site visits of where the workshop delegates would be working in Allabang and Intramuros.
Allabang Site Visit
Allabang Site Visit – Fisherman Houses
Allabang Site Visit – Saving group welcome
Allabang Site Visit – Saving group welcome
The participants were then broken into smaller groups of practitioners and community members and sent to stay in separate neighborhoods (or Barangays) where each group would focus on a specific set of issues faced by the various community groups supported by the local CAN organisation, Tampei.
Group Focus Work in Allabang – Enumeration & Mapping
Group Focus Work in Allabang – Enumeration & Mapping
Group Focus Work in Allabang – learning the CAN practices
Group Focus Work in Allabang – Confirming the Mapping
Each group spent the week intensively working on enumeration, mapping, and design with and for local groups aiming to initiate development energy supporting community initiatives.
Group Focus Work in Allabang – GPS Mapping in dense settlements
Group Focus Work in Allabang – Story collection from residents
Group Focus Work in Allabang – Community Mapping with residents
Allabang in context
Group Focus Work in Allabang – Enumeration & Mapping with residents
This week was also spent sharing knowledge amongst all international participants in such work.
Group Focus Work in Allabang – Consolidating Mapping work for presentation
Sharing valuable skills from participants
This was done while strategically developing a body of work that would be shown to local government stakeholders at a final seminar in both Allabang and Intramuros.
Consolidated Group work for strategic presentation with government stakeholders
Allabang – Strategic presentation with invited stakeholders
Intramuros – Strategic Presentation
The workshop culminated in a social event on the 24th, celebrating the workshop’s success.
Key Observations:
The workshop was highly successful in bringing together community architects from across the world to share experience and knowledge through the mixture of workshop tasks, social events and working activities.
CAN Practice: intensive workshops
The strategic use of these professionals to hyper-activate local community processes was exemplary in not have the visited communities as passive beneficiaries, while using the work developed in the short time to engage local governance bodies to support local community processes was a highly impactful strategy employed by the workshop organisers.
CAN Practice Capacitation through training
In particular it was impressive to see how ingrained the practices were conducted by both local community support and technical support. There seems to be something in the way the Philippines alliance work that goes beyond technical support and enters into new cultural and social dimensions of such work.
CAN Practice – Strategic grass roots work
Personally, it was amazing to be in the presence of so many like-minded professionals who shared the values of community driven processes and were skilled in facilitative design processes.
CAN Practices in action
This experience further cemented my personal motivation in developing critical co-productive design skills for me and other South African socio-technical spatial designers through community driven development projects.
Architecture Sans Frontiers – United Kingdom (ASF-UK) has been conducting their Change by Designworkshops since 2009 in various counties; Brazil, Kenya, England and Ecuador.
These workshops explore participatory design as a tool for advocacy and socio-spatial transformation in informal settlements, in collaboration with grass roots organizations, local NGOs and governmental agencies involved in slum upgrading and housing rights.
“The focus of our upcoming workshop is the neighbourhood of Woodstock, in Cape Town, South Africa. Here, ASF-UK is teaming up with the NGO Development Action Group (DAG) and diverse groups of local stakeholders to explore how inner-city urban regeneration can be re-imagined as a process that brings about more equitable and democratic city development in Cape Town”
The workshop employs a holistic approach at 4 different scales: Dwelling, Community, City and Policy & Planning that works with existing initiatives (DAG) to support work being conducted on the ground.
We worked from DAG’s newly opened DAG Cafe, a space planned to be a platform for future discussion around DAG’s Re-Imagining Settlement’s Programme.
I was assigned to the the Dwelling group where we developed a tool to capture the Life World Mapping of the various sites we set to engage with.
And began the process of participatively mapping with residents of the various sites DAG ia involved with.
Gympie Street Mapping
Bromwell Mapping
Pine Road Mapping
Participative Workshops These findings were then works- hopped through a series of exercises conducted at the DAG Cafe,
This exercise was carefully designed and facilitated by the ASF Team in two parts, one that asked residents to ‘build’ their dream home, then asked residents to discuss together aspects of neighbourhood and possible links to future threats.
Individual Exercise
Group Exercise
The findings from all the exercises were carefully collected and collated into the final day workshop that brought together all the various scales of the workshop as well as various stakeholders in DAG’s projects.
Final Day Exercise
These final workshops were crucial in determining the collective elements of those involved in the different aspects of DAG’s work.
Workshop End
The workshop concluded with a facilitated discussion between the participants and the CBO’s. The next step from the facilitation team is to complete the report for DAG as well as package and share the data gathered during the workshop .
In 2014, after moving into Johannesburg’s inner city, I became involved with a group of artists who had started a very interesting project around engaging ‘positively’ with Johannesburg’s inner city, commonly known as the ‘Joburg CBD’.
They called their project Joburg Joburg, reference to the South Africanism of repeating a word to add emphasis to its meaning:
Person 1: So Johan, where are you staying theses days?
Johan: I’m living in Joburg.
Person 2: Oh, I hear Sandton is very nice.
Johan: No, I’m living in Joburg
Person 2: So like Parktown?
Johan: No, like Joburg Joburg – downtown CBD.
This adage has a base in the other more popular South Africanism of Now Now: see here for more details.
This scenario holds a seminal message of why the Joburg Joburg was conceived – many people don’t see the inner city Joburg as Joburg, instead they see it as a dangerous no-go zone of unnaccessible spaces occupied by a crime syndicate bent on murdering everyone who crosses it’s threshold.
This stigma, which is endemic of many South African public spaces, is the very thing the Joburg Joburg team and myself were looking to understand and explore through our various projects under Joburg Joburg.
The Joburg Joburg story starts with Johan Stegman, and engineer/artist moving into an unoccupied rooftop space owned by a large down town Joburg developer at their flagship property of Corner House.
Image: Johan Stegman & Allen Laing
Through a set of chance circumstance and a burning desire to engage with the city, Johan with Allen Laing, a sculptor working in the inner city, set up an extensive and highly successful multi-artist exhibition exhibition to engage with this question of ‘responding to the centre’.
At this point I was living in the building across from Corner House and assisted the Joburg Joburg team with some minor installation work. This relationship developed as I began assisting the team with some spatial design support towards what they called the Kingdom Hideaway Partnership Rooftop Vision. A strategic design initiative to bring together the various actors at the Corner House building around a common vision of ‘productive’ inner city use.
As part of the arrangement was that I was allowed stay on the roof at corner house for a nominal fee where I took up residence in the Apartheid planned ‘domestic quarters’.
These spaces were the logistic outcome of the Group Areas Act that did not allow black people to live in the same structure as white people which in the suburban areas manifested into what we see today as the ‘maid’s room’ a separate room on the boundary of suburban properties.
But in the city these spaces were placed on the roof’s of building and carefully designed with shared (under serviced) ablutions, lockable areas (to keep people in, not out) and windows that are too high to see out of, but provide the minimal amount of ventilation to pas regulation.
My quarters
These spaces are still in use all over Johannesburg, and hold amazing potential to allow mixed income housing as well as developing a more integrated urban culture – but continue to be used to house a a portion of the labour sector in quite unfair conditions.
Rooftop Socio-Spatial Planning
This initial task was to design and strategies a way to maximise the use of the rooftop space, which is currently underutilised and create a shared environment that only brings the various stakeholders on the roof together, but creates a space for others to access city from.
A phased, multi use strategy was proposed that included light scale rooftop gardening, venue spaces and a potential creative residence that would link with existing functions and support the vision held by the developers for the building.
Rooftop Garden Proposal
This strategy wasn’t met with a completely negative response, but due to the various factors involved with a development in the city certain stakeholders were not willing to make the initial investment of time or commitment, but instead chose to pursue ‘safer’ development investments and options.
Beyond Corner House I also provided spatial strategies, alongside colleagues from Johannesburg, for other buildings which were met with a similar response.
Cross-CBD Engagement
View from the Roof Roof Roof
Although the my time with Joburg Joburg was not productive in shifting the perspective of those I worked with I managed to conduct many interesting projects with the city spaces I worked on and used on daily basis.
Documentation of measuring and rooftop exploration of downtown buildings
City Storms
Capturing the iconic summer storms that makes define a high veld summer
Minimal Mass
Small scale social cycling trips headed by Blanca Calvo
Braamfontein
Unfortunately my time with Joburg Joburg has come to an end, and I am know residing on the edge of the inner city in the vibrant and interconnected Braamfontein District.
Vie from Civic Towers to Inner City
I am still conducting other research into the city of Joburg through my work with the University of Johannesburg’s Architecture Department as well as other initiatives that I am involved in.
Through 1to1, I was commissioned by Local Studio alongside Urbanists for Equity (U4E) to complete a quick, robust and detailed survey of Juta Street in Braamfontein by Local Studio.
Local Studio required a detailed study of the area to support a proposal for an urban park in Braamfontein and wanted a detailed analysis of the user groups, activities and socio-spatial nature of the area.
1to1 and U4E employed the services of UJ students and completed the entire study in a single week.
This work underpinned a later project with the University of Sheffield’s Masters in Urban Design
I was again invited by Dr. Beatrice De Carli to teach in the Urban Design Masters at Sheffield for the 2016/2017 teaching period. This was done as part of a larger network project that has been set up with University of Sheffield (Sheffield, UK), Nanjing University (Nanjing, China), CEPT (Ahmedabad, India) and the University of Johannesburg […]
In 2016 I was invited by Dr Beatrice De Carli to assist in the teaching of the Masters in Urban Design at the University of Sheffield’s School of Architecture for the ‘Design from Afar Module”. We set the brief in Johannesburg’s Braamfontein and aimed to create a teaching/research model that would allow students in Sheffield […]
2018 marks the final year of a 3 year mobility exchange between the University of Johannesburg’s DSD Desis Lab and the Sheffield School of Architecture. RAUM #2 Day 1. Rathul sharing the debate on Public Space as a teaching method for CEPT A post shared by Jhono Bennett (@jhonobennett) on May 8, 2017 at 7:12am […]
Jhono Bennett (University of Johannesburg) facilitated a workshop discussing Johannesburg as a city, the larger movements of national government in the face of the national housing challenge and how spatial designers are working within these larger issues. The workshop was supported by a Q & A panel discussion with Baraka Mwea from UN Habitat, Eric Wright and Claudia Morgado (UJ), UoN planners, architects and student representatives including: Adnan Mwakulomba Abdi (chairman), Ms. Hellen Nzainga, Dr. Joseph Kamenju, Prof. Anyamba Tom Tebesi and Dr. Kákumu Owiti Abiero.
University of Nairobi – Architecture Department
A travelling exhibition on the INFORMAL STUDIO: MARLBORO SOUTH documents the outcomes of the studio and its post-course engagement. It seeks to demonstrate the value of participative design practice in education and practice towards developing contextually founded and achievable approaches to city-making. At the same time, it portays the complexity of engagement across cultural, social and economic divides and makes a case for the redefinition of the role of the professional from top-down expert to grass-roots agent.
This process is captured in multiple narratives which take the form of drawing, maps, diagrams, models, comic and film. The exhibition was curated by Anne Graupner of 26’10 south Architects and its content has been shown in various local and international fora, including the South African Presidency.
University of Nairobi – Architecture Department
University of Nairobi – Architecture Department Studios
Setting Up
I arrived 1 week before the opening to lead the exhibition set up which with the support of the Goethe and the staff at the University of Nairobi’s Architecture Department went very smoothly.
Having the exhibition in the entrance hall of the Architecture Department was a crucial decision, as this gave maximum exposure to the students as it stood here for 1 month after the opening,
Opening Night
The exhibition was opened to a busy night, which included a short presentation by the Goethe, the head of school and myself on behalf of the Informal Studio team.
Exploring Nairobi
I purposefully extended my trip to allow time to explore Nairobi and meet with other design practitioners working in Nairobi.
Nairobi Sky-Line
Dreaded Nairobi Traffic
Nairobi Train Station
Nairobi Public Space
Infamous Boda Bodas
Nairobi felt like a mix of my home town of Durban with the energy of Johannesburg. From alter discussion I discovered Nairobi was actually planned by a South African planner in the 1940’s and bares many of the same socio-spatial ills of South Africa cities.
Exploring Kibera
The team from the Goethe Nairobi were invaluable in the exhibition set up, and invited me to visit some of their art programmes in Kibera’s Soweto.
Privately built (questinabbly legal) multi-storey walk ups providing better density than other forms of delivery.
Muungano Trust
This part of my trip was planned to strategically meet with Jack Makau and Jane Weru of the Kenya SDI Alliance; Muungano Trust & Akiba Mashinini in order to build links between South African Socio-Technical Spatial Designers and those working in Kenya.
The organisations took me around to see their various projects and facilitated an exchange workshop between myself and their technical staff members.
On top of completing my involvement with the Informal Studio, this trip allowed me to see many of the difficulty of the work we conduct in South Africa in a similar but very different context.
This experience was invaluable, and set the relationship for not only future collaborations between the Kenyan SDI Alliance’s Muungano Trust & Akiba Mashinini but also for a potential exchange trip between University of Johannesburg students to Kenya.
The module was taught through research and participatory engagement with various community based organisations that work within Kya Sands.
Kya Sands sits in an uncomfortable tension with it’s suburban neighbour of North Riding.
The studio was conducted at the University, but a several site visits were arranged to understand the context of Kya Sands.
A scaled model was developed and used in a critical exercise to determine the collective aspirations and values held by the various community based organisations.
The exercise was held at a local creche and students worked closely under the guidance of Costanza and myself.
Residents surrounding the the creche were encouraged to attend by the students.
The planning students conducted the participatory engagement and crossed many langauge and social barriers through the exercise.
Through the process, the values and findings were carefully collected, and shared with the participants and added to the ongoing research and engagement being conducted through Wits.
In 2014, we (Eric Wright, Claudia Morgado & myself) as a team of architects, lectures and urban researchers assembled a collective architecture/urbanism/landscape laboratory which closely engages with complex urban conditions of South African. We termed this collective Aformal terrain (AT).
Our first experimentation with this collective was through a critical studio with the leadership of Denver, Informal Settlement in Johannesburg CBD through the studioATdenver. This project was established to take course over a period of 3-5 years and support s much larger development process that Denver is already a part of in regard to the Department of Human Settlement’s work in Gauteng and South Africa. In addition AT worked on a variety of projects in our defined research area:
Aformal Terrain is a collaborative research group based at the University of Johannesburg’s Faculty of Art, Design and Architecture.
Background
Aformal Terrain (AT) is a collaborative and collective architecture/urbanism/landscape group who closely engages with complex urban conditions.
AT focuses on integrating resources and skills towards promoting awareness and generating appropriate responses to the context of rapidly changing and often unstable contemporary urban phenomena.
This approach is underpinned by people-driven methodologies for engagement, research, design responses and planning strategies.
Aformality
The use of the term ‘Aformal’ frames a critical investigation (immersion) into complex spatial, social, cultural, economic and physical urban scenarios as an ‘in-between’ condition, or terrain. This direction is rooted in working with, and, within urban informal settlements with a focus on incremental in-situ upgrading and organic urbangrowth – interrogating current polarised definitions of the ‘formal’ and ‘informal’, and the often confused interpretations between legality and illegality.
Each Studio (project, exhibition, publication etc) is aimed at identifying and interconnecting multiple role-players (actors).
This occurs through an immersive, collaborative and co-produced process of engagement, establishing a platform to enable trans-disciplinary exchange and capacitation, consequently activating public, private and community joint efforts.
AT directs this purpose to three areas of action:
Teaching & Learning
To generate an awareness of varying urban conditions at multiple scales ranging from regional, through neighbourhood, to specific people groups. This action relies on trans-disciplinary collaborative exchange with the aim of leading to well-informed and achievable plans that assist and support community-led development.
An embedded intention here is to further inform current professionals, settlement residents, local/city officials and current students (future professionals) about the nuances and complexities of participatory processes through immersive, real life projects (studios).
Awareness & Knowledge
Strongly tied to teaching-and-learning processes this action is underpinned by the co-production of knowledge and information through collective and mutual exchanges. This process identifies two main sources towards the production of relevant and useful knowledge:
Existing Data – sourcing, analyzing and sharing current data about the specific area of work/study. This includes; local upgrade plans (at city level), National upgrade plans (NUSP and the like), Global references and tools (investigating ‘Global South’ relationships and networks).
Local Knowledge – identifying collective community plans and objectives through discussions and exchange with local residents. This process aims to build on local knowledge with the aim of drawing connections between bottom-up and top-down processes.
Real Projects
AT intends to cultivate long-term sustainable relationships with the networks generated through the teaching-and-learning studios.
Real Projects refers to this intention – to identify potential roles for professionals and spatial practitioners through on-the-ground collaborative processes – assisting community action plans and governmental upgrade plans through providing relevant spatial and design services fitted to contexts of informal settlements.
AT Team: Eric Wright (BOOM Architects), Claudia Morgado (BOOM Architects), Jhono Bennett (1to1 – Agency of Engagement), Stephen Hoffe (Build A Future), Katrine Lategan (ARUP),
AT Collaborators: Tyler B Murphy (Sins of Style), Tuliza Sindi (BRN WSH), Jabu Makhubu (UJ Lecturer), Blanca Calvo (CORC), Motebang Matsela (CORC), Gloria Pavita (UJ Student), Taylor Holloway (1to1 – Agency of Engagement), Phil Astley (UCL)
South African Shack Dwellers Alliance: Sandra Van Rensburg, Rosy Mashimbye, Maureen Sikepo, Dumisani Mathebula
Local War Councillors: Clnr Neuren, Clnr Simelane
Critical Friends: Simon Sizwe Mason (City of Joburg – Management), Moabi Pekone (City of Joburg – Region F: Housing), Nicolette Pingo (Johannesburg Development Agency), Monty Narsoo (NUSP)
University of Johannesburg Students: [2014] Ayanda Madi, Daniele Cronje, Jade Botes, Jamela Mkansi, Martin Jones, Mitchel Thirwell, Moeketsi Phori, Mulalo Mafela, Nathan Abrahams, Lucille Jacobs, Wandile Bongwa Mahlanga, Gareth How, Mohau Moidi, Brian Maila, Victor Martins, Ashish Nathoo, Alwyn-Jay Pretorius, Musa Mathe, Joana Ferro, Dewald le Roux, Crystal Francis, Melissa Brandt,Vikash Mithal, Tlali Nyareli, Sibusiso Lwandle, Pierre Perrault, Kerry Trebble, Isabella da Rocha, Megan Wilson, Wandile Mkhwanazi, Simone Pretorius, Siphosezwe Mahlangu, Thabang Semenya, Mohammed R Suliman, Travis Lee, Mfundo Magongo, Julian Almond, Aisha Balde, Rudelle Bezuidenhout, Kgaogelo Mashego, Karabelo Mlangeni, Binaica Morar, Kholokazi Ngoma, Ruben Smit, Jessica Rousseau, Kagiso Teke, Kyle Blake, Jaco Jonker, Maruscha Govenden, Palesa Khumalo, Ricardo De Sousa, Armand Barnard, Kagiso Bokaba, Nyasha Chirinda, Yusuf Dadabaay, Rosalie Ferreira, Lance Ho Hip, Tebogo Ntsoane, Thabo Ranaka, Mandy Shindler, Roland Britz, Llenette Jones, Lindani Langa, Tebogo Madito, Kashiya Mbinjama , Thabang Montle, Carol Phophi, Roberto Pinheiro, Leme Swanepoel, Nicholas Abrahams, Lerato Bothloko, Sanjay Jeevan, Tebogo Kgatla, Irena Konstantinova, Morena Mahlare, Tebogo Mokgwetsane, Njabulo Ndaba, Joshua Sampson, Reinhard Van Niekerk
[2015] Allen N, Da Rocha I, Erasmus C, Gama J, Jamieson R, Kubayi T, Mabaso M, Makutu N, Mamba S, Mantle W, Mokgwetsane T, Molekoa K, Mothoagae O, Msiska A, Musehane K, Naicker S, Ncube T, Ramos D, Samsodien C, Thirlwell M, Trebble K, Tshivhase M, Vasconcelos T, Nkoana M, Moutloatse L, Adu Agyei D, Behane M, Botlhoko L, Carstens G, Chokoe M, Dekker A, Di bon J, Fourie B, George R, Hollis K, Jama A, Madi A, Makofane T, Malanda J, Mashinini N, Mayes J, Mlambo S, Mlangeni K, Paiva E, Perrault P, Phaladi K, Russwurm J, Saloojee Y, Suliman M, Wilmans M, Tsheoga M, Gono T, Carvalho M, Dart T, Ebrahim F, Greeff M, Isia F, Knobloch A, Makhubele N, Masango B, Mazwi N, Mntambo W, Moore S, Murakata P, Mvakade Z, Ngobeni V, Sikepe M, Sithole S, Tatham P, Thomas N, Van Rooyen R, Zwane J, Machaka M, Mahlangu R
The core underpinnings, purpose and relevance of AT stems from and builds on the development of,and involvement in,these preceding studios
[i]informalStudio: Ruimsig (http://2610south.co.za/gallery24.php) Teaching staff: Thorsten Deckler (principal at 26’10 south Architects), Alexander Opper (director of architecture master’s programme, UJ), Lone Poulsen (architect and urban planner at ACG Architects), Melinda Silverman (urban design theory, UJ). \Ruimsig Community: The community of the Ruimsig informal settlement, including Dan Moletsane, Dingaan Matia, the community leadership and the eight ‘community architects’: Irene Mohale, Rosalina Mphuti, Julia Mashaba, Mildred Thapeni, Albert Masibigiri, Jemina Mokoena, Watson Sibara, and Alfred Mthunzi.UJ Students: Dewald Badenhorst, Dean Boniface, Dirk Coetser, Dana Gordon, Zakeeya Kalla, Daniel Lyonga, Julian Manshon, Matthew Millar, Karabo Mokaba, Jarryd Murray, Trisha Parbhoo, Sean Pillan, Taswald Pillay, Miguel Pinto, John Saaiman, Salome Snyman.Support: Goethe-Institut South Africa has financially and logistically supported the project from its inception; Steve Topham (NUSP); Andy Bolnick (Ikhayalami); Connie Molefe (of the Roodepoort Athletics Stadium management); Max Rambau & André Mengi (CORC); Tolo Phule and Lungelo Mntambo (Delite Visual Archives Studios); Pheagane “Jakes” Maponya, Pumla Bafo & Thabo Molaba (City of Johannesburg); Lisa Ngagledla, Nomahlubi Ncoyini & Pricilla Mario (for sharing the expertise of the Sheffield Road community in Cape Town); Mzwanele Zulu (ISN, Cape Town); Thembile Majoe, Sihle Mbatha, Phiwe Makubu, Mfundisi Masithe (ISN, Gauteng); & Andisa Bidla (CoJ Informal Settlement Formalisation & Regularisation).
[ii]informalStudio: Marlboro South (http://www.informalstudio.co.za/) Teaching staff: Thorsten Deckler (principal at 26’10 south Architects),Anne Graupner (principal at 26’10 south Architects), Alexander Opper (director of architecture master’s programme, UJ), Eric Wright (3rd year lecturer, UJ), Suzette Grace (3rd year lecturer, UJ), Claudia Morgado (3rd year lecturer, UJ). Support staff (UJ): Melinda Silverman, Suzette Grace, Leon Krige, Amira Osman, Annemarie Wagener, Absalom Makhubu, Dr.Finzi SaidiMarlboro South Community: The community of the Marlboro South informal settlement, including the Marlboro Warehouse Crisis Committee (MWCC): Charles Gininda, Thapelo Mogane, August Tswai, Maluleke David, Loveson Motlapa, and the community architects: Winnie Ngubane, Queenie Nkosi, Happiness Nkosi, Khanyisile Soncgca, Fezeke, Baliswa Mahono, Khanyi Ncube, Nonthando Madondo, Thabo Masenyetse, Phili Thafeni, Karabo Mokaba, Promise Nxumalo, Agnes Lekgotla, Mapule Lekgotla, Anna Mathibedi, Melissa, Jabulani Dwiazawa,Thulie Shabalala, Wonderboy Butheklezi, Andries Tzumbezo, Asanda Magqabi, Ayanda Libala,UJ Students: Francois Mercer, Elaine Engelbrecht, Francisco Hamilton Alves, David Cloete, Rick van Heerden, Shani Fakir, Nakedi Nkoana, Lance HO Hip, Brent Proudfoot, Renee van Rooyen, Dylan Watkins with Steffen Fischer, Jolien Dreyer, Eugene Ncube, Naeem Kooreyshi, Katrin Tenim, Martin Bam, Philip van As, Debbie Pienaar ,Laura Strydom, Katty Harris, Dewald Coetzer, Jurgen Rubirske, Lemohang Sekhoto, Shyam Patel, Joseph Matebane, Ashlea Weaver, Calvin Copeling, Basil Moutsatsos, Nhlamulo Ngobeni, Samantha Trask, Jaco Jonker, Lungelo Zulu, Alex Verissmo, Grant Woodward, Jaques Wienekus, Motebang Matselela, Sachin Mistry, Caitlin Bell, Robin Theobald, Keron Muller, Michelle Jordaan, Thabiso Siwana, Gareth Jones, Marc Sherrat, Glen Jordan, Lucille Jacobs, Tlale Masiu, Hanle van HuyssteenSupport: Goethe Institut South Africa has financially and logistically supported the project from its inception; Steve Topham (NUSP); Andy Bolnick & Ryan Bosworth (iKhayalami); Sandra Van Rensburg, Andre Mengi, Jhono Bennett & Jacqueline Cuyler (CORC); Tolo Phule and Lungelo Mntambo (Delite Visual Archives Studios); South African Shack Dwellers International Alliance (SDI): Rose Molokoane (FEDUP), Patrick Magebhula (ISN)
This project was initiated by the PublicActs/Johannesburg (www.publicacts.org) programme, conceived and curated by Katharina Rohde & Thireshen Govender, under interventions (Act #5 and Act #6) of the greater PublicActs/Johannesburg Project:
Mai Mai Market in the morning (Image: Jhono Bennett)
“Focusing on new and emerging public spaces PublicActs/Johannesburg aims to investigate and showcase its many different manifestations and potentials.
Producing a catalogue of urban public conditions based on criteria that respond to the contemporary reality of our city and represent its diverse geographies, six sites are identified for their critical value. These meander between the New Imaginaries, the Everyday, the Grand and Spectacular, the Ephemeral and Politics, Power and Protest.
Acknowledging different interpretations of publicness, six creative collaborators alongside local actors are invited to produce a series of actions, site-specific interactions or performances in defined sites, to provoke discussion and the imagination around future public spaces in Johannesburg.
The project culminates into 24hour choreographed Public Acts which invites spectators to playfully engage and interact with the creative interpretations on site. Additionally to the artistic outputs, the festival program will engage local stakeholders and a greater public to critically reflect and comment on the projects findings, speculations and provocations. This will allow for thought about the conditions and production of public space in Johannesburg
With the research and experiences generated we aim to challenge urban actors and decision-makers to engage and construct public spaces in Johannesburg in innovative and democratic ways. Our findings and creative outputs shall function as a guide on how to approach, use, misuse, appropriate and imagine public space in African cities”. (text taken from www.publicacts.org)
The Kwa-Mai Mai socio-spatial action research intervention was the 6 week culmination of a critical process of engagement with the Kwa-Mai Mai Committee and the Mai Mai users. This article explains the process undertaken by those involved and summarises the experience highlighting the key findings and discoveries along the way.
Through a series of discussions, informal workshops and mapping exercises fellow PublicActs provacateurs, Liliania Transplantor and WayWord Sun of AMBush Gardening Collective and myself began investigating the complex and layered qualities of the socio-spatial dynamic of the Kwa-Mai Mai Bazaar (referred to locally as the Mai Mai Market and the entire area as Mai Mai) in Johannesburg’s Central Business District.
What was amazing was not in the fact that they were taken, but that as the day progressed the chairs were slowly returned to the site as the extended leadership from within the Mai Mai Market exercised its control over the entire Mai Mai site, and through co-ordinated movements all chairs were returned back to their original placement.
Mai Mai Food Court before the Act began – with chairs re-appropriated (Image: Jhono Bennett)
Mai Mai Food Court before the Act began – as the chairs began returning (Image: Jhono Bennett)
Mai Mai Food Court before the Act began – as the chairs began returning (Image: Jhono Bennett)
Mai Mai Food Court before the Act began – all chairs returned (Image: Jhono Bennett)
This finding eluded to a much more complex and organised form of leadership and governance that exists in Mai Mai. Simultaneously, more intricate territories amongst the food court users were revealed as the chairs became a symbol of territorial control as users claimed ownership over various arrangements.
Findings
While the experiment did not meet the original aim of constructively provoking forms of seating and gathering it revealed many of the intangible connections and controls that allow the Mai Mai Food Court to work as a highly successful and productive democratic public space in appearance, but a deeply territorialised and governed space in the public realm.
This initial engagement was the first step in a much longer envisioned engagement from both 1to1 – Agency of Engagement and AMbush Gardening Collective with the Kwa-Mai Mai Committee and its users in their own goals of developing Mai Mai into their collective vision.
What the process revealed to us, and our project partners, was how crucial the delicate and negotiated process of trust building that is required through critical engagement to even begin to uncover important social and spatial relationships areas such as the Mai Mai Market.
More so, how important it is for city planners and spatial practitioners to understand that not all systems reveal themselves at face value and often in such complex and rich public spaces, one needs to more engaged and critical when interrogating public space towards an understanding or an intervention.
This research is a continuation of previous research undertaken in Berlin during June 2013, and serves to clarify the hypotheses and findings of both spatial research exercises. The premise of both papers rests on the contrasting backgrounds of the researchers, as during the initial pre-project logistics it quickly became clear that both members of the tandem brought very different perceptions of public space and its use; most notably the contrasting views on what determines safety in public spaces. The initial goal of our partnership was to investigate informal and formal perceptions of ownership in public space. As a tandem, we were interested in how different user groups perceive public space and how these users “owned” the space. This interest stemmed from the contrasting differences in our backgrounds as we quickly realised that as two people from such different places our own perceptions were so different in our initial discussions.
The aspect of ownership has revealed itself in the our experience to be a key factor in understanding the complexity of informal activities in public space in contrast to what are considered the formal use by those who control and manage such spaces. This understanding of the relationship between formal and informal uses is crucial for those looking to intervene spatially or develop an understanding of such diverse public spaces.
After comparing the findings in both parks the understanding of formality and informality broadened. It became very clear that informality is a wide term, impossible to define. Discussing it around an example helped to make it more comprehensible.
The method mix was very helpful, in that it allowed for a variety of answers to the research questions from many different points of views. This shows that perceptions of space and safety are irrevocably interlinked to people’s backgrounds, understanding of local norms and their own experience.
Having come from such different backgrounds the effect of the method mix proved even more valuable. Each tandem had the possibility to get an insight into the work of an architect / a geographer. This was seen most critically in the beginning of the process, as it became clear that both tandem partners use different approaches to investigate space and place – an important finding in order too develop better future methods of working inter-disciplinarily
The workshop forms part of the Change by Design Programme developed by ASF-UK and tested in several contexts including Brazil and Kenya.
The programme applies a holistic and multi-level approach to participative design in vulnerable contexts and seeks to support local stakeholders through its mechanisms.
The process has been documented in detail by the organisers and can be viewed here:
“For the 4th installment of the Change-by-Design workshops, ASF-UK is teaming up with a coalition of Ecuadorian architects, community organisations, activists and academics to develop design ideas for the “Buen Vivir” neighbourhood, that can inform and help shape the Urban Revolution Agenda or ‘Revolución Urbana’ in major Ecuadorian cities in 2013. The Buen Vivir concept, meaning ‘Good Living’ (or sumak kawsay in Kichwa) is an indigenous philosophy that advocates for social organisation, collective wellbeing, and new ways of engaging with people and the environment. Building on participatory design tools developed in previous workshops in Brazil & Kenya, we will be using the Buen Vivir concept to design an upgrading plan for the community of Los Pinos and a series of project proposals for the Community of Atucucho. The workshop will also engage Ecuadorian students and professionals alongside the international participants, and will host a city-wide symposium and several visits to other organised informal settlements. Local partners | The Ecuadorian coalition for Buen Vivir and Change by Design This coming May, the Ecuadorian coalition will be implementing a series of one-day workshops with various actors, exploring the City, the Neighbourhood and the House of Buen Vivir, in preparation for the Change by Design workshop in August 2013. For images, stories and updates on the communities and local partners visit our Facebook page”
The coalition is formed by: CLACSO’s Latin American Working Group on Popular Habitat and Social Inclusion CONBADE The National Confederation of Barrios of Ecuador (CONBADE) IAEN | The National Institute of Higher Studies UPS | The Polytechnic Salesian University of Quito (UPS) GBA | The Neighbourhood Government of Atucucho BCA | The Community Bank of Atucucho The Community Development Committee of Los Pinos
The workshop brought together 40 practitioners on the project and divided the group into a Los Pinos and Atacuho group, then into the 4 focuses: Policy & Planning, City, Community and Dwelling.
The first few days were spent visiting the sites and receiving critical input from various experts.
I was assigned to Atacucho, and the community focus group. We were tasked with beginning an immersive critical mapping process with various community groups from the Atacucho Neighborhood.
Each day, we carefully documented and planned the following day with the various teams in order to work towards the agreed outcomes decided by the project organisers and local stakeholders.
We developed various tools to engage with the youth group in Atacucho, and prototyped ‘Atacuchbook’ as a way to collective data.
This process of mapping, researching and documenting was the foundation towards determing the next set of workshops where we would share these findings and gather more nuanced and subjective findings.
Workshop 1
Our team set about building an interactive site model, as well as creating a series of exercises to uncover information from the broader Atacucho Neighborhood.
This set of exercises was conducted in various locations including the street corner to broadly engage with as many groups, ages, gender and cultural sects within Atacucho.
Workshop 2
We continued this set of exercises to spread the net of engagement as wide as we could, and adjusted some of the questions based on the initial process.
Workshop 3
Armed with this data, and a restful weekend, we set about creating the next series of interactive exercises to work through with pre-arranged focus groups.
These exercises had us manufacturing and designing simplistic ‘games’ that allowed us to capture the subtle nature of people’s ‘vision’ for the neighborhood.
Final Workshop After this intensive two week process, we gathered all the data and the findings and developed a set of ‘recommendations’ that we shared at the local youth centre as part of the initial hand over process. The workshop made allowance for a set of interns to remain after this engagement to further develop these with the stakeholders over a six month period.
co-determined recommendation page example
This took place in both Atacucho as well as Los Pinos and was the culmination of a very intense 2 week process.
Final workshop night
Reflection Quito reflects many parallels to South African cities, and offered some interesting aspects of social cohesion in the ‘mingas’ (social work parties) that allowed government tactical ways to recognise ‘community’ and work through towards development.
The workshop exposed me to a highly rigorous and complex process that truly engaged with the complexity of vulnerable urban residents, while allowing me to part of a process with no expectation of leadership.
I feel there is much I will take forward with me into my work in South Africa.
The initial goal of our partnership was to investigate informal and formal perceptions of ownership in public space. As a tandem, we were interested in how different user groups perceive public space and how these users “owned” the space. This interest stemmed from the contrasting differences in our backgrounds as we quickly realised that as two people from such different places our own perceptions were so different in our initial discussions.
The aspect of ownership has revealed itself in the our experience to be a key factor in understanding the complexity of informal activities in public space in contrast to what are considered the formal use by those who control and manage such spaces. This understanding of the relationship between formal and informal uses is crucial for those looking to intervene spatially or develop an understanding of such diverse public spaces.
This is essentially a photo essay of the events from my perspective, with supplemented referenced links from on-line sources, that depicts my involvement in the MWCC’s processes during this period.
The MWCC had been established after a fall out with various civil and local authority groups who had negotiated for the residents on their behalf to their right to occupy the warehouses.
The MWCC working with CORC technical member
As Socio-Technical support a large part of our our job consists of being in leadership meetings.
In total the MWCC represented 53 occupied warehouse who spatially had re-furbished factories ‘abandoned’ during the violent periods in Marlboro South during the early 1990’s.
Some warehouse were occupied with minimal changes
Other warehouse were completely adapted internally
While other had their internal delivery yards converted into housing.
At the time, I had just taken over from a former colleague, Jacqueline Cuyler, who had recently completed a temporary housing solution for residents under the MWCC while working for CORC in response to an earlier illegal eviction with the MWCC weeks before.
These temporary houses were part of the SASDI’s Community Upgrade Finance Facility (CUFF) project process, and were intended to house MWCC members while the leadership engaged the powers that be.
The idea of what is considered temporary emerged many times during my work in Marlboro South. These structures were erected in less than 3 days and were later dissembled in a shorter time, but are considered permanent by most institutional bodies for very obscure reasons.
What is interesting is which elements of the houses are considered crucial such as the stoep’s – an important social space – that doubles as structural stabilisation and a weather foot. As well as numbers and entrance features when built at this speed and for this purpose.
Retail and other business opportunities are quickly seized upon.
My first project was to help in a savings group that was looking to install a new toilet through the CUFF process. This involved assisting with the design, costing and facilitation through the various social processes that the SASDI work through.
Intern on site in Marlboro South
During this time I held a dual position between the University of Johannesburg (UJ) as a part time lecturer and researcher while working at the SASDI, and as part of my interest in developing and sharing socio-technical spatial design skills (1:1 Student League) I would bring interested students to various meetings to expose them to these complex spaces.
The (in)formal studio undertook their first project in 2011 in Ruimsig, working with SASDI members, and sought to continue the project in 2012 in Marlboro South with the MWCC, and I was charged by the NGO with facilitating the relationship.
UJ lecturer Alex Opper and Architect Thorsten Deckler walk through Marlboro South with ISN memeber Albert Masibigiri
The challenge in developing the brief, was to satisfy the academic nature of a Architectural investigation into a complex socio-political environment with the crucial needs of such residents in their potentially un-spatial requirements.
My dual position between UJand theSASDI allowed me to play an important role in facilitating the needs of the MWCC while assisting in the development of the brief forUJ’s Architecture Department.
What emerged was an incrementally structured brief that broke down the site of investigation and design into 3 scales of research and intervention that eventually culminate into a potential architectural product that was the sum of an intense process of engagement with and for residents and the MWCC members.
The studio was then broken into sections of engagement on a weekly basis from large scale land use analysis to participative mapping site scale mapping all the way down to life-world analysis of individual residents of Marlboro South warehouses. This was done in mixed teams of post graduate and undergraduate students and Marlboro residents under the guidance of the SASDI Alliance.
Extract from UJ brief (University of Johannesburg, 2012 Brief Hand Out)
The studio was arranged with weekly meetings in both the settlement site and the University studio on campus, this was done in order to share the spatial realities of both participating groups.
Members of ISN and MWCC arriving at UJ
UJ Students arriving in Marlboro South
Mapping and measuring exercises at UJ with ISN, MWCC and students
Mapping and measuring research in Marlboro South with ISN, MWCC and students
Mapping and measuring exercises at UJ with ISN, MWCC and students
Mapping and measuring research in Marlboro South with ISN, MWCC and students
Mapping and measuring exercises at UJ with ISN, MWCC and students
Mapping and measuring research in Marlboro South with ISN, MWCC and students
Mapping and measuring research in Marlboro South with ISN, MWCC and students
Mapping and measuring exercises at UJ with ISN, MWCC and students
Mapping and measuring research in Marlboro South with ISN, MWCC and students
Mapping and measuring exercises at UJ with ISN, MWCC and students
Mapping and measuring research in Marlboro South with ISN, MWCC and students
Mapping and measuring exercises at UJ with ISN, MWCC and students
Mapping and measuring research in Marlboro South with ISN, MWCC and students
Students were then divided into smaller groups and asked to determine site specific design intervention solutions at a framework level and present this back to the MWCC and the residents for feedback in the scheduled workshop meetings. The groups would then begin to propose possible solutions within this framework from a small scale level of intervention to possible larger ones.
Student presentations in Marlboro South occupied Warehouses
Student presentations in Marlboro South occupied Warehouses
UJ Student presentation at UJ Architecture Department
Student presentations in Marlboro South car wash facility outdoors
UJ Student presentation at UJ Architecture Department
Student presentations in Marlboro South occupied Warehouses
Student presentations in Marlboro South occupied Warehouses
Student presentations in Marlboro South occupied Warehouses
UJ Student presentation at UJ Architecture Department
UJ Student presentation at UJ Architecture Department
Student presentations in Marlboro South occupied Warehouses
UJ Student presentation at UJ Architecture Department
Student presentations in Marlboro South car wash facility in Marlboro South streets
Student presentations in Marlboro South car wash facility outdoors
Student presentations in Marlboro South car wash facility outdoors
Unfortunately an impromptu later deemed illegal eviction of several sites occupied by residents and the MWCC by the City of Johannesburg made the issues of capacity and focus very difficult, as well putting the students at potential risk.
UJ students at one of the sites of the eviction
The studio was altered and majority of participatory work happened on the University campus and other adjacent venues.
Local restaurant in Marlboro South chosen due to evictions
From an academic standpoint the studio was highly successful in opening up student perspectives on the various forms of tangible and intangible support designers can offer, as well as exposing some of the student body to contexts and cultures not critically experienced before.
This studio process revealed how important it is for these processes to be managed by larger social groups, as universities do not have the capacity or scope to support such large social movements or deal with evictions and the repercussions of such an act. At first the large team sizes were difficult to manage, but put together large amounts accurate socially sensitive of data very quickly – this proved invaluable in the ensuing lawsuit against the city, while creating a large volume of work from which further exercises can be held.
Land Use Diagram that was instrumental in proving the illegality of the eviction by JMPD
While the design studio exists as one of the most flexible and adaptable spaces to navigate the intricate and dynamic world of socio-technical design processes, it needs to be considered in the larger picture of what design pre-professionals are required in the ‘real world’. If the processes employed in these spaces are not done so with an understanding of the expected role of the students then result can be defined by a product and process that only benefits an academic inquiry into development work, but not a pragmatic one.
These ‘living laboratories’ require sustainable systems of development through socially inclusive and open processes. These systems need to be clearly documented and the set up in a manner that does not rely on the individuals gains of singular entities, but speak to a larger drive of all parties involved; that of socially conscious open minded people within groups that are up front in their intentions around engagement.
The relationships that the design studio establishes and nature of the enthusiasm open minded pre-professionals carry through into the real world should be guided by a strong acceptance of these process by not only the tertiary bodies that facilitate, but by the profession that needs to look at its role in this and support those pushing through the current limitations.
The underlying ethos of these studios should not be one of design professionals entering an informal context and superimposing the values of formality in their support, but of seeking to understand and ‘un-learn’ in order to respond in such a way that works with the energies and capacities of the informal context. This approach distances the designer from control of the final ‘product’ of support, but allows for long term sustainability of support facilitating the most key aspect of design support – ownership
Eviction – August 2012
On August 17, 2012 I received a call from the a member of the MWCC. He was speaking fast and all I could hear over the background roar was that JMPD were evicting people from the warehouses and that a bulldozer had killed someone. Not sure what to do, I phoned the lawyers (SERI) we were working with who told me all we could do was try and get the physical court order document and gain an interdict as soon as possible.
Armed with this knowledge and my camera I rushed to Marlboro South, but was denied access to the area by JMPD. After parking my car deep in Alexandra I ran the 2km gauntlet around the police blockade to the MWCC office, here I found out that no one was dead – but someone had fainted after a police bulldozer had knocked down her home.
Marlboro South was overrun with JMPD, a later estimated 500 plus members of orange and blue were demolishing selected sites over the industrial belt.
With the MWCC behind me I approached several official looking members of the police to try and find the court order, when I had eventually reached the top of the hierarchy I was joined by a journalist friend I called en route and the lawyers from SERI. Here we were shown the ‘official’ document for the eviction – a handwritten note.
There was very little the lawyers, the NPO or the MWCC could do but watch as the police demolished their homes, as the process to block the order was delayed and most of the residents were at work at the time.
some residents chose to burn their homes rather than have the material confiscated (formerly mentioned CUFF project)
Other residents attempted to salvage what they could (CUFF project seen above)
As most of the inhabitants were at work, they returned that evening to find their homes destroyed and the material confiscated along with their personal belongings and valuables.
Post Eviction
The evictions continued for several days intermittently, the MWCC attempted to protest by blocking JMD access into Marlboro by placing obstacles in the roadways. Which resulted in JMPD employing crowd control methods including rubber bullets.
Residents were shot with rubber bullets during an attempted protest and block of further police evictions.
After the initial eviction, the Gauteng ISN and FEDUP, the Community Based Organisation (CBO) under the CBO’s within the SASDI, assembled in Marlboro to support the MWCC.
Asihambe (We won’t go: IsiZulu ) Solidarity March
While the Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) worked to obtain the official interdict, the CBO’s under the SDI prepared a formalised march to address the City of Johannesburg around the eviction.
Other technical members of the SDI, specifically a planner from the U.S working at the alliance worked tirelessly to examine housing and policy law to assist the lawyers in the case, while the my most valuable skills at this stage I could offer were that of photo-documentation and poster design to support the march.
Several single mothers sheltered in the MWCC office during the eviction
During the process of gaining a temporary interdict for 65 families that could not be sheltered anywhere, the City of Johannesburg’s lawyers offered the residents ‘temporary’ occupation of the site on condition that they would not erect structures more than 1m high, that could not be made of ‘iron metal’ and that had no structural support – as seen here in the documentary “Landless”:
Using the South African Housing code’s stature on temporary housing as being a minimum of 24 sqm, and 2.4m high made of material that offered occupants safety and privacy. The city then replied that the structures could be 2.4m high, not ‘permanent’ and have ‘poles’ that could not be longer than 2m.
The SASDI offered support in providing temporary shelter for these families, but had very little money to support this. This put forward an interesting design brief for us providing the socio-technical support, as what the city had stated in writing was a clear omission of spatial and material elements and heigh restrictions.
As practitioners we offered an interpretation of that order to possibly build it out polycarbonate panels, and what if the houses were all put together in 1 large ‘tent-like’ structure maybe made of hydra form (non permanent bricks) – essentially working around the legal requirements through design.
We were advised by the lawyers to respect the spirit of the order and not be to clever in such a delicate situation.
A piece of government owned land was chosen by the MWCC and several army tents were donated by donors to the NGO.
These tents were an emergency solution to the temporary housing of the 65 most vulnerable families in the eviction. The names of each person was registered in the court order and were awarded temporary occupation by the court on site until the City of Johannesburg responded. This was crucial as 1 week later Johannesburg experienced a rare snow storm that plunged temperatures to freezing overnight.
Permanently Temporary Solutions & The (in)formal Studio – November 2012 – February 2013
In the background to the eviction and court battles, the professionals and academics who had been involved in the studio were working on developing a more permanent housing solution to show the City of Johannesburg alternatives to addressing some of the major issues in Marlboro South.
The architect’s discussing a possible government owned site with the MWCC
This solution was to be part of a larger body of work, including the student’s design work, that would make up a travelling exhibition to showcase these types of engagements and projects to a larger audience.
One of the major outputs was a participatively developed housing scheme that would re-house residents of the MWCC in a safer, more incremental pattern that worked with current spatial typologies and land use.
These possible layouts were work-shopped with various MWCC members and residents and developed into a larger development plan.
The tools used for this larger development design, were used to attempt to negotiate a temporary solution for the tent dwellers who were occupying a different parcel land.
The 65 families were engaged on several occasions to develop an accepted layout for the City of Johannesburg to adopt in accordance with the court order.
This smaller temporary plan was put together through CORC and submitted to the City of Johannesburg as part of the deliverable from the residents side.
As the weeks went by, and the City of Johannesburg missed its court ordered dates of engagement, and the tent dweller residents began making temporary adjustments to their tent home, including a cooking area and other social spaces.
The walls get higher…
To date the tents are still up and residents are still waiting for the City to keep up its ordained mandate as local factory owners build higher walls and grow more angry at the situation.
The (in)formal Studio Exhibition – April 2013
“An exhibition covering the entire project was opened in the Goethe gallery in February 2012.
Rather than delivering defined solutions this exhibition delivered on portraying and celebrating human engagement across a divide of one of the most unequal cities in the world. It recorded the contradictions and discomforts but also the tremendous potential which exists in seeing, and acknowledging each other as part of the solution.” Anne Graupner, 26.10′ South Architects
Directed by Lungelo Mntambo & Tolo Pule of DeLite and edited by Nadine Hutton of 2point8
MWCC members recieving their public recognition at the screening in Marlboro South
MWCC member presenting the introduction at the official Exhibition Opening
Post Exhibition Work – May 2013
I have recently left my position at CORC to pursue a focused socio-technical role alongside the NGO, looking more at developing role for spatial design students and pre-professionals.
Quite soon after my departure the SASDI the NGO, by a chance meeting with a non-profit social group in Cape Town, was offered the opportunity by another non-profit group of being a solution to potentially house the 65 families living in the tents nearby in Marlboro South
The conditions were that the those effected should benefit from this donation and the project should not just house, but also socially develop the inhabitants. The SASDI, the MWCC and the newly formed (in)formal Studio collective are currently working on this.
Academics, professionals, NGO and CBO discussing the oppurtunity
Reflection – July 2013
This summary has taken me almost a year to complete. Looking back at the role I played in the social development process has been quite difficult as the notable differences in the situation of those I worked with has not changed much on the ground – although larger scale shifts in approach and thinking have happened higher up in the governance structures.
The role of anyone in an NGO supportive role, let alone someone with an architectural background, is extremely difficult. Having to work across many cultural, economic and social backgrounds while supporting other people’s processes to capacitate without falling into the temptation of short cutting important and tiresome methodologies and just doing it for people is a taxing mental challenge.
I had many sleepless nights (in my own comfortable bed, that looked over Marlboro South in the distance) during the eviction feeling utterly useless in the face of such a huge destructive force. These concerns stayed with me during my time at the NGO as the issues facing these initiatives are so complex and overwhelming that is often drains you of your resolve.
What eventually led me to step out of my position at the SASDI was the realisation that the role spatial designers (architects, planners, some engineers) can play in these processes is niche – but crucial. While it’s difficult to make changes to the large picture, I felt my role could be much more effective in my own ‘community’ of spatial design students and pre-professionals. By being involved from this position I could make the difference I wanted by first bringing these practitioners into these spaces they would not normally work in, and by developing additional ways of acting, thinking and intervening in such situations.
I am still involved with the South African Shack Dwellers International Alliance in Johannesburg, working with the organisation on various projects and assisting in the support of their new socio-technical staff. I now sit part time at the University of Johannesburg and Pretoria while focussing on the role that the 1:1 Student League and recently developed 1:1 – Agency of Engagementt in socio-technical spatial design in South Africa.
This finding eluded to a much more complex and organised form of leadership and governance that exists in Mai Mai. Simultaneously, more intricate territories amongst the food court users were revealed as the chairs became a symbol of territorial control as users claimed ownership over various arrangements.
