01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
1N1B1H 1 Neighbourhood 1 Building 1 Home
This research was conducted during the months of May to July 2016 by Urbanists for Equity (U4E). This project is a U4E self-initiative. The team conducted the project with no client and the only limitations to the research were those that the team considered would cause discomfort among the respondents. The research is based on the responses to a survey that was conducted in different households in a building called Civic Towers in Braamfontein, Johannesburg. In order to protect the privacy of the respondents and to avoid possible tensions among neighbour, some information that came up from the research has been excluded from this document. Apartment numbers, therefore, have been excluded in certain questions .
The research covered a total of 47 households, 36.7% of the 128 apartments. The survey sample did not respond to any selection process but merely to those residents who were willing to participate in the research. It it possible, therefore, that a group of people, more open to this type of research projects, is overrepresented in this research . It is also important to note that this document is published almost a year after the surveys were conducted and some of the respondents have already moved out. Last, U4E would like to thank all those people who contributed in the research. Thanks for opening your homes and sharing your stories with us. We owe this research to you.
When my friend recently visited me in Civic Towers, she made me notice something. Something insignificant to the world, even to most of us, but important for this research. Civic Towers’ residents share a certain wisdom. Not a brilliant wisdom for which we will ever get a Novel Price, but something unique to us which most likely also happens in other buildings. She said “it looks like everyone that lives in this building knows all the secrets of these lifts�. True. We all know that the 10th floor button for the left lift is broken so we get off on the 11th and walk down. That, for some mysterious reason, the left lift has decided to not stop on the 6th floor. That the right lift has the second floor door locked. That the left lift used to do regular visits to the 16th floor, we liked it or not. That the left lift gets stuck on the 9th floor when going down (not when going up) and someone has to push the wooden door for the lift to move again. Sometimes you beg a neighbour who is on the 9th floor hall, sometimes a person from the lift gets off, in solidarity, to push the door for the others to move. We all know that when the lifts stop moving we have to force the inner doors open and push the wooden outer door for it to open and close again. That if that does not work, we will send an S.O.S to the Civic Towers Gen. Group Whatsapp group. Last resort, we will hammer the bell on the lift and patiently wait for a rescue. Only a Civic Towers resident can press the 13th floor button on the left lift without blinking. All this knowledge, while it will never win us an award, is one of the examples that makes this very diverse group of residents be one community.
CONTENTS
BACKGROUND 6 PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH
8
PROJECT METHODOLOGY
9
APARTMENT TYPOLOGIES
10
WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION?
17
WHERE DO YOU COME FROM?
18
WHEN DID YOU MOVE INTO THE BUILDING?
20
DO YOU RENT OR DO YOU OWN YOUR APARTMENT?
22
HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE IN THIS APARTMENT?
23
WHAT DO YOU VALUE THE MOST IN YOUR APARTMENT?
24
WHAT DO YOU VALUE THE MOST IN THE BUILDING?
26
WHO DO YOU KNOW IN THE BUILDING?
28
WHAT, IF ANY, CHANGES HAVE YOU SEEN IN THE BUILDING?
41
WHAT, IF ANY, CHANGES HAVE YOU SEEN IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD?
44
CONCLUSIONS 46
BACKGROUND Braamfontein, a neighbourhood of Johannesburg inner city, is quickly changing. After two decades of urban decay, the neighbourhood is undergoing a process of regeneration. Art galleries and coffee shops started popping-up around an intersection known as the “creative corner� and are slowly expanding to other parts of the neighbourhood together with street art, international sports brands shops and restaurant. New developers are investing in the area, finding their market in student accommodation and filling the gap for an urban lifestyle demand that is reviving among a new generation of young professionals. Some positive outcomes have come out of this regeneration process. The impressive change that has taken place in Braamfontein brings some hope that other areas of Johannesburg inner city could also become at some point a safe place again, both in physical and economic terms. The changes in the area are also creating a new perception of inner city living. What used to be perceived by a large part of Johannesburg population as an undesirable area, now is starting to become a high demand area even amongst middle and upper class. In a city were urban sprawl is the rule, this new desire for urban living and the renewed appreciation for apartments (although in some neighbourhoods, such as Killarney, apartments never had a bad stigma), bring some hope for a more sustainable city model. Braamfontein has also become a racially and socioeconomic integrated neighbourhood, a real exception 6
in Johannesburg. At this point, nevertheless, one cannot say if this is just a stage of a transformation process or if it really is here to stay. However, the relatively placid coexistence of the different groups is still remarkable for one of the most segregated cities in the world. On the negative side, a serious of issues and debates have raised from this regeneration process. The new developments have also come with a new group of owners and tenants, who are displacing those who used to be in braamfontein. In short, the neighbourhood is being gentrified. Civic Tower is one of the residential buildings in the neighbourhood. Although we heard two contradictory stories about the history of the building, both stories have some common logic. The building was initially owned by a big company that used to have its main office at Braamfontein. The building provided accommodation for its employers. With the urban decay of the area, the company moved away from Braamfontein and a large part of the workers followed. Some of the people who stayed bought their apartments. The other apartments were also sold most to investors or new people who moved in at that time. Today things are quickly changing in Civic Towers. The last and first days of every month residents are moving in and out. The hammering of renovations fills up the quiet air of the day. Rentals are increasing and apartments are being sold. The figures and the graphs on the right, drafted from Property24 Civcic Towers report, speak by themselves.
YEAR 1991 1991 1991 1992 1992 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 1994 1994 1994 1995 1995 1996 1996 1996 1996 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 600000 2003 2003 2003 2003 500000 2004 2004 2004 400000 2004 2004 2005 2005 300000 2005 2005 2005 200000 2005 2005 2005 2005 100000 2006 2006 2006 0 2006 1985 1990 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 800000 2010 2010 2010 700000 2010 2010 2010 600000 2011 2011 500000 2011 2011 2011 400000 2011 2011 2011 300000 2012 2012 200000 2012 2012 2012 100000 2012 2012 0 2013 1985 1990 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 600000 2014 2014 2014 500000 2014 2014 2015 2015 400000 2015 2015 2015 300000 2015 2015 2015 200000 2015 2015 2015 100000 2015 2016 2016 0 2016 19852016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016
800000
NUMBER APARTMENTS SOLD PRICE MAX MIN R59 000 R70 800 R72 000 3 R72 000 R59 000 R90 000 R58 500 R64 000 3 R90 000 R58 500 R6 750 R45 000 R75 000 R88 000 4 R88 000 R6 750 R5 700 R8 200 R97 000 R72 000 4 R97 000 R5 700 R6 000 R76 000 2 R76 000 R6 000 R80 000 R80 000 R80 000 R79 000 4 R80 000 R79 000 R85 000 R85 000 R115 000 R70 000 4 R115 000 R70 000 R75 000 R85 000 2 R85 000 R75 000 R100 000 1 R100 000 R100 000 R58 500 R100 000 R110 000 R60 000 4 R110 000 R58 500 R78 000 R61 000 R70 000 R60 000 R6 600 5 R78 000 R6 600 R80 000 R50 000 R42 000 R115 000 4 R115 000 R42 000 R6 500 R95 000 R6 000 R73 000 4 R95 000 R6 000 R95 000 R85 000 R70 000 R80 000 R85 000 5 R95 000 R70 000 R180 000 R130 000 R85 000 R165 000 R115 000 R160 000 R140 000 R150 000 R120 000 9 R180 000 R85 000 R480 000 R85 000 R125 000 R175 000 4 R480 000 R85 000 2000 2005 R240 0001995 R265 000 2 R265 000 R240 000 R500 000 R510 000 R250 000 R360 000 4 R510 000 R250 000 R245 000 R280 000 2 R280 000 R245 000 R300 R300 000 000 R295 000 R270 000 R525 000 R350 000 5 R525 000 R270 000 R335 000 R440 000 R605 000 R250 000 R380 000 R10 000 R335 000 R200 000 8 R605 000 R10 000 R500 000 R385 000 R370 000 R400 000 R510 000 R300 000 R350 000 7 R510 000 R300 000 R450 000 1995 2000 2005 R420 000 R580 000 R580 000 R250 000 R575 000 R460 000 R395 000 R350 000 R630 000 10 R630 000 R250 000 R520 000 R245 000 R420 000 R365 000 R365 000 5 R520 000 R245 000 R650 000 R645 000 R335 000 R690 000 R300 000 R375 000 R370 000 R385 000 R380 000 R265 000 R404 000 R710 000 12 R710 000 R265 000 R525 000 R475 000 R740 000 R7201990 000 1995 2000 R495 000 R450 000 R450 000 R435 000 R425 000 9 R740 000 R425 000
AVERAGE
R67 267
R70 833
14 12
500000
R53 688
12 10
500000 400000
R45 725
10 8
400000
R41 000
300000
8 6
300000
6 4
200000
R79 750
200000
4 2
100000
R88 750
100000
R80 000 R100 000
0 01985 1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2 0 01985
1985
R82 125
PRICE PRICE
800000
R55 120
800000 700000
R71 750
R45 125
800000
800000 700000
NUMBER APARTMENTS SOLD
700000 600000 14 600000 500000 12 500000 400000
700000 600000
600000 500000
500000 400000
400000 10 300000 300000 8 200000 200000 6 100000
R83 000
100000 0 4 01985 R138 333
1985
2
R216 250
2010
2015
R252 500
0 1985
2020
400000 300000
300000 200000
200000 100000
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2015
2020
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
MIN AND MAX PRICE
R405 000 R262 500
800000 700000
R348 000
600000 500000 400000
R319 375
300000 200000 100000
R402 143
2010
2015
0 1985
2020
1990
AVERAGE PRICE
PRICE
14
600000
AVERAGE PRICE
PRICE
AVERAGE PRICE AVERAGE PRICE
600000
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2015
2020
NUMBER APARTMENTS SOLD
R469 000
14 12
R383 000
10 8 6 4 R459 083
2005
2
2010
2015
2020
0 1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
MIN AND MAX PRICE
R523 889
800000
2010
7
100000 0
0
PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH 1 Neighbourhood 1 Building 1 Home (1N1B1H) is a research project that looks Civic Towers as a small representation of Braamfontein as a whole. The project is aimed at tracking the process of change happening in the neighbourhood and the current social trends. To do this, the project identifies the residents and their networks within the building to understand how different relationships are formed in a mixed neighbourhood like Braamfontein. By documenting the current status of Civic Towers we can unpack the process of change in Braamfontein and so identify what are the opportunities to be explored and the challenges to overcome with the current development of the neighbourhood. The project also explores the idea of home and what it is that makes a space become home. The building and each apartment in it is merely a shell of the space that each of us recreates when we
move in. During our time at Civic Towers we intrepid even the smallest living space as ‘home’ – no matter how short our stay. We are fascinated by the numerous lives that this shell holds. Unfortunately the research could not expand much on this area as we wanted to avoid respondents feeling uncomfortable with the questions. The project success relied on residents’ will to collaborate on the research. Therefore, to avoid residents being reluctant to participate in the research, we avoided personal questions. Some residents also preferred to not have a picture of their apartment taken. Some questions that would have been very relevant to understand who is coming in and who is going out of the building, were also avoided. So were any race and economic related questions, which would have been key to quantify the demographic change in the building.
Surveys questions What, if any, changes have you seen in Braamfontein since you’ve been in the neighbourhood?
What is your nationality? What, if any, changes have you seen in the building since you’ve been here?
What is your occupation?
8
What do you value the most in Civic Towers?
Who do you know in the building and what relationship do you have with them?
What year did you move into the building?
What do you value the most in your home?
PROJECT METHODOLOGY Dear neighbours, My name is Blanca Calvo. I am one of the residents in the building (apt 1004) and, together with my colleague, Lené Le Roux, I would like to do a short research project in Civic Towers. The project looks at our building as a small representation of Braamfontein.
What the project will look like?
What is the project about? The research will look at who currently lives in Civic Towers and how has the building changed over time. We would like to see what relationships exist between residents and how each household in each apartment has personalized the space to make it their home. Where is this going to? We have set up an online blog (https://1neighbourhood1building. wordpress.com/) where we will show all the information form the project. We would also like to have a small exhibition in Braamfontein, and if possible, print a small publication.
This is us, Blanca and Lené
Where do you come in? To do this, we would like to take a picture of the living rooms in each apartment of Civic Towers, with you as residents in it. We would also like to ask some basic questions to understand who we are and who we interact with in the building (e.g. how many years have you lived in the building? Who do you know in the building?). Your collaboration is essential for the success of the project and we would highly appreciate it if you make time available for us to meet you.
Please indicate apartment number:
Please indicate in the calendar when we could come visit you (indicate more than one time slot if possible) and deposit this pamphlet into the box we have left in the foyer with security. Thank you in advance for your cooperation (More info: https://1neighbourhood1building.wordpress.com/)
Dear neighbours,
Pamphlets distributed in Civic Towers
The project findings came to. Because of the small My name is Blanca Calvo. I am one of the residents in the building What the project will look like? (apt 1004) together with my colleague, Le Roux, I would initialLené response, new posters from twoand, research tools: like to do a short research project in Civic Towers. The project looks our building and as a smallpictures representationwere of Braamfontein. printed with pictures A at survey of the first participants and What is the project about? from the apartments. surveyors knocked door research will look at who currently lives in Civic Towers and how ToTheget neighbours excithas the building changed over time. We would like to see what relabyeach door asking people to exist between residents and how household in each edtionships to participate, postapartment has personalized the space to make it their home. Unexpecters for the project were participate. Where is this going to? printed and pamphlets edly, a large part of the This is us, Blanca and Lené We have set up an online blog (https://1neighbourhood1building. new respondents rejected were distributed wordpress.com/) whereto weevery will show all the information form the pictures seeing the project. We would also like to have a small exhibitionafter in Braamfondoor, ourtein, andintroducing if possible, print a small publication. posters. selves and the project Where do you come in? and asking residents to responses been To do this, we would like to take a pictureThe of the living rooms in have each apartment of Civic Towers, with you as residents in it. We would also indicate a time for a visgraphically represented like to ask some basic questions to understand who we are and who interact with in the building (e.g. how many years have you lived it. we The surveys were used when possible to make in the building? Who do you know in the building?). as an ice breaker to ini- knowledge more accesYour collaboration is essential for the success of the project and we would highly appreciate it if you make time available for usdifferent to meet tiate other conversations. sible to the type you. Pictures were taken from of residents in the building Please indicate in the calendar when we could come visit you (indithose apartments where well asthis topamphlet allow a quick cate more than one time slot if possible)as and deposit into the box we have left in the foyer with security. the residents were willing er lecture of the findings. Thank you in advance for your cooperation
(More info: https://1neighbourhood1building.wordpress.com/)
Please indicate apartment number:
9
APARTMENT TYPOLOGIES
The building has three different apartment typologies: Two bedrooms, one bedroom and bachelor apartments. As indicated on the diagram above, each floor houses two two bedrooms apartments (maroon) at the edges of the building and two bachelors apartments (yellow) in the central part of the corridor, behind the staircase. The rest are one bedroom apartments (orange).There are 64 one bedrooms, 32 bachelors and 32 two bedrooms apartments in total. When the building was completed, each of those apartments were identical. Over the years, some of the apartments have been modified from its original configuration. Some apartments have been subdivided to create extra rooms, some Bachelor's apartment 51 sqm
10
1 bedroom apartment 59 sqm
balconies have been closed off, some of the two bedroom apartments’ kitchens have been opened up to enlarge the living room area, etc. Apart from structural changes, other minor changes have Bachelor's apartment 1 bedroom apartment also Some 51 sqm individualised the apartments: 59 sqm wooden floors have been replaced for tiled floors, the old cupboards have often been replaced, paint of all types and colours have covered up the initially white walls and, of course, furniture and all sorts of elements have been hang up on the walls making the identical empty shells become different homes. The identical configuration of the apartments offers the opportunity to explore how people occupy space, making identical apartments become different and unique homes. 2 bedrooms apartment 96 sqm
2 be 96 s
Bachelor's apartment 51 sqm
1 bedroom apartment 59 sqm
Bachelor's apartment 51 sqm
2 bedrooms apartment 96 sqm
1 bedroom apartment 59 sqm
2 bedroo 96 sqm
edrooms apartment sqm
Bachelor's apartment 51 sqm
1 bed 59 sq
Apartment designs in their original configuration
11
ONE BEDROOM APARTMENTS
12
13
TWO BEDROOMS APARTMENTS
14
BACHELORS’ APARTMENTS
15
Possibly because their spatial configuration bachelor apartments are the ones that offer the most diverse spectrum of distributions. The bigger room was often inhabited as a bedroom, converting the space in front of the kitchen as an improvised living room. In other occasions, the bed was taking the space in front of the kitchen, leaving the bigger space as a living room. In a couple of the apartments we visited, both the bigger room and the and the space in front of the kitchen were occupied by beds. The pictures show how in some apartments the living room space has been prioritised, with several couches and 16
chairs creating a gathering space, in others the dinning table takes up the main space, others have prioritised the working space. Most households have a negotiated balance between different spaces uses. Interestingly, most of the apartments we visited were characterised by a strange assembly of different furniture styles, suggesting that the apartment had been filled up in an unplanned manner, collecting stuff from here and there. The scarcity of integrated decoration arrangements seems to suggest that a large portion of the residents are in the building in a non-permanent basis.
WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION? The large variety of occupations that came out of the surveys made it impossible to group them in any other form other than “professionals”, for those people receiving a salary, “students” and “not employed people” (unemployed or housewives). A total of 51 occupations were captured in the 47 surveys. The number of responses is higher than the number of surveys because the occupation of several households members was often collected. From those 51 occupations, “professionals” was the most numerous group making up 58.8% of the total. Twenty-two different professions (or professionals fields) were recorded. However, the most repeated occupation was “student”. Students made up 37% of the total list of occupations, confirming the idea that Braamfontein is a student neighbourhood. The tiny percentage (3.9%) of non-employed people (those not doing paid work) captured in the surveys may be not be a accurate representation of reality. In households with more than one member, we did not always obtain the occupation for all the members. It is possible, therefore, that some unemployed residents (or other “housewives”) were not captured in the survey. Thus, the responses must not be taken as a statistical representation of the residents’ occupations but rather as a general sense of what Civic Towers residents do for a living.
Film industry
Entrepreneur
5.9% 5.9%
Students
37.3% What is your occupation? Archeologist Lecturer Literature supervisor Architect Graphic designer Film director / maker / TV editor Music director / musician Call centre supervisor Chartered accountant Entrepreneur Geologist Business man Gym manager IT self employed Business consultant Newspaper Editor / Journalist Consultant in Energy & Sustainability Restaurantier Sales agent SAPS legal department Teacher Campaigns manager at Netbank Proffessionals
1 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 30
2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 3,9% 3,9% 5,9% 3,9% 2,0% 2,0% 5,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 3,9% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 58,8%
Student Internship at world bank Students / Recent graduates
18 1 19
35,3% 2,0% 37,3%
Unemployed / House wife
2
3,9%
Total number of responses
51
100,0%
17
WHERE DO YOU COME FROM?
18
South Africa (34, 72.9%)
Democratic Republic of Congo (4, 8.5%) Zimbabwe (4, 8.5%) Spain (2, 4.2%) Cameroon (1, 2.1%) Kenya (1, 2.1%)
Belgium (1, 2.1%)
We found people from seven different countries living in the building. South Africans represent 72.3% of the people we spoke to, which means that the other 27.7% are foreign nationals. A total of 93.5% of the respondents where nationals from five different Pan-Africans (including South Africa). European nationalities made-up the other 6.3% of the people we spoke to. NOTE: The sum of these figures adds up to 98.8%. This imprecision is due to the single decimal used on the statistics. 19
WHEN DID YOU MOVE INTO THE BUILDING?
(click on image above to see video)
When we asked the residents when did they moved to Civic Towers, we realised that many of them had been living in different apartments in the building. Some of them, had even moved in and out the building and back again. The results from the surveys have been captured in a video that shows the year that the respondents indicated they moved into a specific apartment. The orange lines indicate how people moved inside (and sometimes outside) the building. The respondent that claimed to have lived the longest in Civic Towers moved in 1994. Looking at the video, it may appear that the building was empty in the first years. This is not what the video intends to show and t is only an issue of lack of data: we 20
never met the people who have already moved out and, therefore, we could not include them in the graphics. In other words, the video only shows people who are currently living in the building but this does not mean that there were no other people in the other apartments. The video clearly shows that most of the current residents moved in the last threefour years apparently confirming the trend that we heard from neighbours while conducting the survey: there is a new wave of residents moving in that is replacing the longer term residents. Nevertheless, this conclusion can not be confirmed without further research. The data from the surveys may be skewed and only represent
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
16
12 2016
15
10
2006-200912
8
14
2015
2013-2014
2000- 2005
Before 2000
2010-2012
10 6
13
12
8 4
11
6 2
10
09
4 0
08
2
07
06
180
05
16
04
1994
1997
1998
2001
2002
2003
2005
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
1994
1997
1998
2001
2002
2003
2005
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
14 18
03
12 16
02
10 14
01
8 12 6 10 4 8
8
2 6
2016
2015
2013-2014
2010-2012
0 4
1994 1996 1997 1998 2001 2002 2003 2005 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2
2006-2009
2000- 2005
Before 2000
a newer and often younger group of residents who are willing to participate in research exercises like this one, excluding those who have been in the building for longer. Another interpretation of the data would be looking at short term rotations in the building. With this theory, the fact more than half of the respondents only moved in the last three years could also indicate most Civic Towers residents stay in the building for short periods of time. To really understand what are the dynamics in Civic Towers, more in depth research should be conducted, and a research like this should periodically be conducted to contrast the data.
0
1994 1996 1997 1998 2001 2002 2003 2005 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
When did you move ito the building? 1994 1996 1997 1998 2001 2002 2003 2005 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 5 6 10 16 21
DO YOU RENT OR DO YOU OWN YOUR APARTMENT? 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
01
16
15
Ownership
Rental
11
06
07
08
2016
2000-
12
Ownership
Ren
10
09
09
08
08
07
07
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
06
05
05
04
04
03
03
02
02
01
01
14
13
12
Ownership
11
10
09
08
07
06
01
The 02results from 03the survey clearly show 04 05 06 07 that most people who live in Civic Towers does not own the apartment they reside in. 80.1% of the respondents were tenants. No correlation could be made between ownership structures and type of apartment and number of years they had been in the building.
Rental
08
2016
2015
2013-2014
2006-2009
2000- 2005
Before 2000
05
04
03
02
People renting (38 - 80.9%)
01
22
20
2006-2009
11
10
15
05
13
12
16
04
14
13
01
03
15
14
06
02
16
People owning (9 - 19.1%)
2010-2012
HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE IN THIS APARTMENT?
The number of people per apartment varies from one to six people with an average of 2.04 people per apartment. Almost half of the apartments (44.7%) have only one person living in them. When we look at the apartment typologies and the number of people living in each unit, we can also see that the average floor area per person is
42.3 sqm/pers. However, looking both at the apartment typology and the number of people per apartment makes the density disparity between different apartments apparent. Data from the surveys revealed that the largest living space per person (96 sqm/pers) is eleven times larger than the smallest living space (8.5 sqm/pers).
Number of people per apartment
Living space per person
How many people live in this apartment?
21 - 44.7% 12 - 22.5% 7 - 14.9% 6 - 12.8%
1 - 2.1%
Min Average Max 8.5 42.3 96.0 sqm/pers sqm/pers sqm/pers 23
WHAT DO YOU VALUE THE MOST IN YOUR APARTMENT?
(click on image above to see video)
In order to understand why is Civic Towers such an appealing building, we asked people what was it was that they value the most in their apartments and in the building. We left the question open to avoid conditioning the respondents. The responses we got from the question “what do you value the most in your apartment” were often shocking for the team conducting the research. The immense variety of approaches to what makes an apartment be “home” were quite enlightening. We all value different aspects of our homes, from the view 24
through the window to the comfort of our sofa or the painting on that wall that makes us think of a dreamed trip. Despite the very opened question, however, most of the responses had to do with some intrinsic characteristic of the building related to the design and the orientation of the apartments. The most common response made reference to the dimensions and proportions of the apartments, indicating that most people in Civic Towers seem to be quite happy with their apartments in terms of size and distribution of the space.
Sunlight & warmth
The view
12.8% 6.4%
Electronics
Quietness
12.8%
8.5%
Apartment size & proportions
Wooden floors
Kitchen / gas stove
25.5%10.6%10.6% What do you value the most in your apartment? The view Sunlight and warmth Building orientation related
3 6 9
6,4% 12,8% 19,1%
12 2 1 4 5 24
25,5% 4,3% 2,1% 8,5% 10,6% 51,1%
Quietness Privacy Comfort Qualities of space
4 3 1 8
8,5% 6,4% 2,1% 17,0%
Cat Room mates Family People / animals they live with
3 1 1 5
6,4% 2,1% 2,1% 10,6%
4 6 3 3 1 17
8,5% 12,8% 6,4% 6,4% 2,1% 36,2%
1
2,1%
Right size / proportions / Spacious Nice living space / open plan Balcony Kitchen, gas stove, oven Wooden floors Building design and finishes
Bed and / or couch Electronics (Computer , ebook, laptop, TV) Pictures and /or paitings Other possessions (Bicycle, father's bookcase, guitar on wall) Internet Possessions / assets Sense of home
25
WHAT DO YOU VALUE THE MOST IN THE BUILDING?
(click on image above to see video)
When asked for “what do you value the most in the building” Civic Towers residents showed another face. Material qualities took a backstage and other aspects were prioritised. Intangible qualities of the building, such as the type of people who stays in it and management aspects, were the most repeated responses. Safety was the absolute winner of the question, mentioned 22 times in the 47 interviews. It must be noted here that safety in Johannesburg is one of the most relevant criteria when choosing a place to live. Johannesburg inner city has been known during the last decades for its unsafety and, although Braamfontein is actually not considered “Town”, the bad stigma (and possibly the 26
real unsafety as well) has also spilled its reputation. Having 46.8% of the respondents indicating that safety is one of the aspects they appreciate the most of the building is therefore noticeable for the area. However, the fact that “safety” features in the list confirms that safety is still not a neutral quality but rather one of the residents’ main concerns. The high appreciation for a “diverse” and “open” community is also worth noticing. Urban segregation in Johannesburg, and South African Cities in general, is still one of its most prominent features. Twenty-three years after the end of Apartheid, the city is still strongly divided. The legacy of the Apartheid system is very visible and
racial and socioeconomic separation is still the norm. Resistance to “mix” is quite common and the NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) movement features quite strongly when the city attempts to build lower-income neighbourhoods next to middle and higher-income areas. The appreciation of Civic Towers residents for a“diverse community” is, therefore, some sort of hope for a more integrated South African cities. However, as we will see in the “What changes, of any, have you notices in the building?” section, the “integrated neighbourhood dream” is more complex than what it appears to be here and the “mixed community” has its own issues. It must also be noted that despite the actual diversity of the residents, the building is predominantly dominated by middle class people and lower income residents are scarce. Another relevant finding is the large amount of residents that like the “location” of the building. As already mentioned, Braamfontein is part of Johannesburg inner city. South African cities are generally dominated by suburban life. Inner cities, apart from Cape Town, have been left behind by those who could afford a house in the new suburbs. This is specially the case with Johannesburg inner city, a place followed by a reputation of crime and despair. However, it looks like this trend is starting to reverse and there is an increasing appetite for urban life. The recent development of Maboneng and Braamfontein, show the success of new “inner city developments”. The fact that the building location was the second most appreciated aspect of the building, confirms that there are people who actually choose to live in the building not despite but because of where it is located.
Location
Urban life / Cosmopolitan
29.8% 4.3%
Neighbours / friends
Diverse & open community
Sense of community
23.4% 12.8% 6.4%
Safety
46.8%
Apartments / building quality
10.6
%
What do you value the most in Civic Towers? Location Urban life / cosmopolitan The neighbourhood
14 2 16
29,8% 4,3% 34,0%
Neighbours / friends Diverse( and open) community Sense of community Family environment Interaction with other sudents Non-students hub People in the building
11 6 3 1 1 1 23
23,4% 12,8% 6,4% 2,1% 2,1% 2,1% 48,9%
Freedom / freedom of expression
4
8,5%
Safety Cleaniness and good maintenance Recycling system How the building is managed
22 5 1 28
46,8% 10,6% 2,1% 59,6%
Buidling / apartments quality Swiming pool / garden Roof top Building complex
5 4 1 10
10,6% 8,5% 2,1% 21,3%
Quitness
4
8,5%
Price / affordability
3
6,4%
27
WHO DO YOU KNOW IN THE BUILDING? 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
Relationships in the building
Before we started the research we had the impression that there were two different networks in the building that worked on a parallel level but with minimum intersection: One made up by longstanding residents and another one of newcomers. To verify whether this first impressions were true or not, we asked our respondents who did they know in the building. When we set up the survey, we anticipated five different types of relationships: Family, friendships, acquaintances, greetings and services-based relationships. As the 28
research unfolded, we discovered other networks which we have included here: The Hub & Corner stone church building (see page 32) and landlord-tenants relationships. The network of connections that we got from this question (see image above) was complex and dense. In order to make some sense from this information, we split the networks between different types and assigned a different line colour and line type to each of them (image page
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
Different types of relationships in the building
29). By doing this, we could start uncovering who had an spontaneous relationship emerged from sharing the same space and who had actually a deeper relationship such as families and friendships. When compiling the data we realised that some of the relationships were not corresponded. In some cases a respondent would consider a friend someone who would consider the former only an acquaintance. Or some respondents said to know one of the neighbours, who in
turn did not mention the former. The fact that type of relationships were loosely defined, may be one of the reasons for this disparities. Respondents did not see the surveys beforehand so they may have also forgotten to list some names. In those instances we have kept the “closest� relationship claimed (e.g.: friendship instead of acquaintance) in order to avoid potential tensions between neighbours. This decision may have depicted stronger community networks than what actual relationships in the building are. 29
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
16 15 14 13 12 11
Four different families were identified in the building. Those family relationships included cousins, siblings and parents-children relationships. The families that we found in the building consisted of two or three different households. All the members of one of the families participated to the research. In this family, all the members had moved into Civic Towers between 2013 and 2014. All we know from the other two families is that the surveyed members of the one family moved in between the years 2000 and 2005 and the other one before the year 2000.
10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
Families 01
02
03
04
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03
06
07
08
A large number of friendship relationships was found. The term “friendship” was not defined when doing the survey. Therefore, it is possible that the way that some of the respondents understood “a friendship” differs from the understanding of other respondents. This would explain why some respondents reported a very high number of friendships while others did not report any. It could also be, as it is the case, that some people became friends over time or that brought their friends into the building. This will be unpacked in the following pages. Some of the friendships overlap with other types of relationships will are also listed here (e.g.: landlord-tenant, church, etc).
02 01
Friendships
30
05
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
16 15 14 13 12 11
The number of acquaintances in the building was also quite large. This, again, may be explained because of the looseness of the term “acquaintance�, which was also not defined in the research. During the interviews, acquaintances were defined as those people that you do not just greet but you have some longer conversations when you meet or eventually hang out together.
10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
Acquaintances 01
02
03
04
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07
05
06
07
08
The number of people that greets each other in the common spaces of the building was also very numerous. The research however limited this relationships by recoding only the ones that people could provide an apartment number. This ensured that it was not just a random greeting on the lift but a more consolidated relationship. Greetings often referred to people living in the same floor however they were not limited to those.
06 05 04 03 02 01
Greetings
31
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09
People who knew each other from Cornerstone Church have been linked by cyan lines and The Hub people by magenta lines. Those relationships between the two networks that were created because sharing the space, have been indicated in purple. The diagram indicates how the two networks are mostly independent apart from the two persons that managed those spaces. These two individuals become the convergence point of the two networks.
08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
The Hub & Cornerstone Church 01
02
03
04
05
06
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06
Seven people in the building were related by what we named “The Hub & Cornerstone Church” network. The Hub (or Impact Hub as it is currently named) is a co-working space that used be in the same building in Braamfontein that the Cornerstone Church is. All these seven people are newcomers to the building.
07
08
A number of “service-based” relationships were identified. These included three different type of services provided by residents: A home-base laundry service that several residents use for their washing (801), a domestic worker* that cleans some of the apartments and the former building manager (603) who used the be the person in charge of the building. Unfortunately, we know little of those people providing services since they did not participate in the research.
05 04 03 02 01
Service-based relationships
32
* The diagram of the building does not include the small rooms on the rooftop. While most of those rooms are storage space, some of them are inhabited. The dark green lines for the domestic worker, indicate that she lives in one of the rooftop units.
01 16
01 02
02
03 03
0404
05 05
06 06
0707
08 08
16
2016
2016
15
2015
14
2013-2014
13
2010-2012
12
2006-2009
12
11
2006-2009 2000- 2005
11
10
Before 20002000 2005
10
09
15 14 13
09 08
2015 2013-2014 2010-2012
Before 2000
08 07 06
07 06
05 04
05
03
04
02
03
01
02 01
Overlap between different level relationships in the building and years people moved in
The next step to unpack the networks data was to overlap the different type of relationships with the number of years that people had resided in the building. This step was only done for friendships and acquaintances, where the large number of connections between neighbours were so many that the diagram was hard to read. The intersect of the two data sets uncovered a new layer of information, reveling which of those relationships were between longstanding
residents, newcomers or intergenerational. The split between longstanding residents and newcomers has been set up at the point were the apartment prices picked up. As we have seen in the graphs in page 5, this happened in 2005-2006. To avoid mixing the two generations, a third “transition� group was established integrated by people who moved in between 2006 and 2010. The following pages show the relationships within and between the three different groups. 33
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03
From the 45 the friendship relationships that were found in the building, three of them (6.7%) were between residents who moved into the building before 2006. Taken in isolation, this seems to indicate a rather low number. However, these three friendships must be measured only amongst the number of longstanding residents that responded the survey, which was eight. To provide a more representative statement, it would be more adequate to say that three friendship relationships were identified amongst the eight long standing residents who participated in the research.
02 01
Friendships between longstanding residents 01
02
03
04
05
06
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07
07
08
A total of 21 friendship relationships were identified between people who had moved into the building after 2009, making up 46.7% of all the friendships recorded in the survey. The diagram shows that, despite the high number of friendships between newcomers in the building, networks are scarce. In most cases, we found that friendships were linear rather than circular: A is friends with B and B is friends with C etc but A and C are not friends.
06
The diagram shows one network in which four people all are friends with each other and two of those share two other common friends.
05 04 03 02 01
Friendships between newcomers
34
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06
Only one friendship relationship was identified between people who had moved in the building between 2006 and 2009. Although this seems to indicate that people who moved during that period are not friends with each other, it must be noted that the survey only captured these two households moving into Civic Towers between 2006 and 2009. Therefore, the fact that they are friends makes 100% of the people who moved in between 2006 and 2009 friends according to this survey.
05 04 03 02 01
Friendships between people moved who in between 2006-09 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
16 15 14 13 12 11
08
Only two (4.4%) out of all the friendship relationships that were identified through the surveys were between people who moved to the building in different generations. Both of them were between longstanding residents and a newcomers.
10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
Friendships between longstanding residents
35
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
Friendships between a surveyed and a not surveyed resident 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
Longstanding residents acquaintances
36
08
A total of 13 friendship relationships that were recorded could not fit into any of the previous categories because only one side of the relationship participated on the survey. These relationships have been indicated on this diagram with dashed lines and make up for 28.9% of all the recorded friendships. The same colours that have been used in the previous diagrams are used here: light green for longstanding residents, turquoise for people who moved in between 2006 and 2009 and blue for newcomers. Although we do not have information regarding people who did not respond to the survey, we can see that some blue lines converge in specific apartments and so do green lines in one of them. For unknown reasons, longstanding residents did not report many acquaintances in the building. From the 55 acquaintances that were captured, only six of them made references to longstanding residents. These includes relationships that longstanding residents claimed themselves and relationships with longstanding residents claimed by other groups. Only one (1.8%) of these six relationships was between longstanding residents that both responded the survey.
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Again, the number of acquaintances between newcomers was the most numerous one. A total of 29 acquaintances was reported between newcomers. This represents 52.7% of all the acquaintances recorded in the survey. Similarly to the friendships relationships, no networks were easily identifiable apart from those that overlap with The Hub and Cornerstone Church networks.
07
08
As could already be expected, the two only respondents that moved into the building between 2006 and 2009 were not acquaintances, as they qualified their relationship as a friendship already.
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
Newcomers acquaintances 01
02
03
04
05
06
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
Residents who moved in 2006 and 2009 acquaintances
37
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
16 15 14
The number of intergenerational acquaintances went up to three, a 5.4% of all the acquaintances recorded in the surveys.
13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
Intergenerational acquaintances 01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
Respondents acquaintances with non surveyed residents
38
As we have already seen with the friendships, a number of the acquaintances that were reported could not fit into any of the previous categories because only one side of the relationship participated on the survey. These relationships have been indicated on this diagram with dashed lines. The same colours that have been used in the previous diagrams are used here: light green for longstanding residents, turquoise for people who moved in between 2006 and 2009 and blue for newcomers. Again, we can that some blue lines converge in specific apartments, indicating that the people in that apartment is connected to several newcomers.
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
Friendships and acquaintances coloured according to different groups
The first and most obvious observation is that friendships and acquaintances are most common between newcomers. Nevertheless, the number of respondents for each category has to be looked at before making any conclusions. Our sample included 37 (80.4%) newcomers, one transition household (2.1%) and eight longstanding households (17,5%), therefore, it is to be expected that the surveys would capture more relationships between 80.4% of the respondents (newcomers) than the rest. The number of friendships and acquaintances amongst the group of newcomers, however, is still
quite impressive. The diagram shows that most of the surveyed people are interlaced with blue lines, meaning that most newcomers have friends and acquaintances in the building. Interactions between the two different groups (intergenerational relationships), are relatively small compared to the numbers. Taking into account that all the non -newcomers (19.5% in total) could have claimed an intergenerational relationship with the newcomers and vice versa, one could have expected the number of intergenerational relationships to be higher 39
Groups:
8 (17.5%) longstanding residents(moved in after 2009)
2 (2.1%)
transition residents (moved in after 2009)
37 (80.4%)
newcomers
(moved in after 2009)
Relationships between longstanding residents:
6.7% friendships 1.8% acquaintances Relationships between transition residents: 2.2% friendships (100% in their group) -
acquaintances (can not be because the two only respondents in this group are already friends)
Relationships between newcomers: 46.7% friendships 52.4%
acquaintances
Intergenerational relationships:
5.4% friendships 4.4% acquaintances 40
than 4.4% of the friendships and 5.4% of the acquaintances. The diagrams also show that while most relationships do not seem to work in a network or in groups, some small family, friendships or other groups do exist. These groups, seem to all have moved into the buidling during the same periods of time. It has already been mentioned that people providing services in the building have not been surveyed and, therefore, we do not know when they moved in. What we do know is when the clients did though. The clients of the laundry service are all newcomers while the ones for the domestic worker are mixed. The newcomer clients majority for the laundry service could be explained in two ways. Firstly, that clients for the laundry service are those who do not have a washing machine because they live in the building in a non-permanent manner, which would explain that the laundry service’s clients are always a recent wave of residents. Secondly, that the group of newcomers is wealthier and can therefore afford the service. The same logic for the clients can not be applied for the building caretaker since everyone in the building used to be a client. However what we do see is that people from all generations, except of those who only moved in in 2016 (when she was no longer the building care-taker), seem to know her and know what her role was. The service-based relationships work in a different logic to the other relationships. The intersect is not based on common interests, age groups, socialising habits but the demand and supply of a specific service. They are therefore, the type of relationships that have more potential to cut across different groups of residents, behaving as connectors as well as benefiting both groups.
WHAT, IF ANY, CHANGES HAVE YOU SEEN IN THE BUILDING? When asked for what changes had taken place in the building since they moved in, 16 of the 47 respondents said to not have noticed any changes. For those who noticed, responses were diverse. Possibly because the way the question had been framed, most of the responses referred to objective physical changes. Other responses included changes in demographics, changes in the governance of the building, changes in the maintenance of the building, increase in the already famous cockroaches situation (famous at least for those who live in the building), changes in the prestige of the building and pricing of the apartments as well as other changes of all sorts.
moving into the building while the number of Indian people and pan Africans seemed to be decreasing. During one interview, one of the residents who has lived in the building for over 15 years said that there had been an increase of white faces and that, back in the day, white people in the building “could be counted with one hand”. Some respondents also noted a “different socioeconomic class” moving into the building. Taking into account that three respondents noted the increased prestige and price of the apartments, it can be assumed this “different socioeconomic class” is actually a higher economic class than the longstanding residents.
The introduction of the fingerprint system was the most noticed change (mentioned 14 times). Other changes including the establishment of the recycling system, the new floor plan fire escape plan hung up on the corridors, the renovation of the reception, etc. went more unnoticed. A number of responses referred to the management and maintenance of the building. Two people mentioned that the maintenance of the building, which used to be in managed in-house by former building managers, had been outsourced. Seven responses were subjective opinions regarding the management and maintenance of the building with a general sense of “deterioration”.
An increased presence of the body corporate was noted by two respondents and one mentioned a “concerned group of owners”. This “increased presence” seems to have been perceived both in a positive and in a negative manner. While two respondents reported that there was “more order” in the building, two also noted an increased strictness.
Ten of the responses reflected on the change on the racial and the socioeconomic class composition of the residents. In general terms, the responses seem to indicate an increase of white people
The responses to this question were often backed with stories. These stories, contain some of the non-quantifiable data from this research, key to understand what were the events that represented the change in the building for different residents. Three of these stories speak about punctual events or politics that make a divide between two different groups in the building evident. The last story, does not speak about this divide between different groups, however it has been included here because it does reveal a divide 41
What changes have you seen in the building since you moved in? Mix of races / racial compositon Fewer pan Africans Less indian people More white people Different socioeconomic class New generation of concerned owners More families More students Demographics changes
2 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 14
2,2% 1,1% 1,1% 3,2% 3,2% 1,1% 1,1% 2,2% 15,1%
Body corporate has become more excusive Improved financial situation of the building New group of concerned owners moved in Building governance
1 1 1 3
1,1% 1,1% 1,1% 3,2%
Less cockroaches More cockroaches The roaches situation
1 1 2
1,1% 1,1% 2,2%
Maintenance has been outsourced (increasing levies) Poorer management Deterioration / worse maintenance / less clean Better maintenance Maintenance
2 1 5 1 9
2,2% 1,1% 5,4% 1,1% 9,7%
14 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 32
15,1% 3,2% 2,2% 2,2% 2,2% 1,1% 1,1% 1,1% 1,1% 1,1% 1,1% 1,1% 1,1% 1,1% 34,4%
Strengthened presence of body corporate More strictness More order House rules out up and delivered Governance of the building
2 2 2 1 7
2,2% 2,2% 2,2% 1,1% 7,5%
Increased sense of prestige More expensive / commercialised Prestige and price
1 2 3
1,1% 2,2% 3,2%
Next door neighbours changed Less family oriented More bicycles Laud bird moved in Increased friendship networks to move into the building More noisy neighbours Lauder people on the streets Other changes
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
1,1% 1,1% 1,1% 1,1% 1,1% 1,1% 1,1% 7,5%
No changes
16
17,2%
Total number of responses
93
100,0%
Finger print system New floor plan for fire scape plan Recycling system established Re-done water and pumbling systems Renovation of reception Re-done gas systems Pest control Basement maintenance Lights fixed in corridors Buzzers removed Water and gas bill introduced TV ads hang in the building Fire drills Pool cleaned Physical changes
42
in time between a time where the body corporate seemed to be weaker and a time when it has been strengthened and takes control over the building. THE NEW YEAR’S PARTY The New Year’s party came up in a couple of interviews. This apparently silly incident has remained in some neighbours’ mind indicating the starting point of the division between “us” and “them”. The story started with an innocent New Year’s party that some of the longstanding Indian residents of the building had organised to welcome in the new year. The party went on for too long, or it was too loud, or both, too many people were invited (somebody mentioned 100 people), and maybe no permission had been granted for the party to take place. Anyway, complaints were made and the house rules were applied ending the party. This story relates to aspects of house rules, increased presence of the body corporate, order and strictness, which is similar to the responses received to the question “what changes, if any, have you seen in the building since you’ve been here?” in the interviews conducted. Especially taking into account that one of these responses was specifically “more strictness regarding garden parties”. The juxtaposition between “more order” and “more strictness” reveals some interesting dynamics. While both responses refer to the way the building is governed, “more order” has a positive connotation, while “more strictness” seems to allude a loss of freedom. However, there may be some correlation in that “more order” in the building may come from a “more strict” way of governing the building. The surveys
however also revealed that “freedom”, as well as other aspects of the management of the building, were highly valued, indicating that, besides possible divisions, there is a general sense of happiness regarding the current management of the building. THE FIRE INCIDENT One cold morning in the winter of 2015, a fire broke out in the neighbouring building, and Civic Towers’ residents were alerted to evacuate the building. Residents congregated in front of the building, standing outside in pyjamas and watching the smoke coming out from the basement next door. It was a unique circumstance that neighbours from all races, all ages, all income groups, newcomers and “old residents” met, for once, in one space. Collectively we waited for the fire to be extinguished. For most of us, this went unnoticed. The research however uncovered that something else happened that day. Standing outside in the cold and waiting for some authorisation to walk back into their homes, some of the residents started to talk about the recent changes in the building. They were a group of residents who had been in the building for longer than another group that they perceived as newcomers. They shared a common concern: “the group of newcomers was taking over the building”. The newcomers had started buying apartments and taking control of the body corporate and then adjusting the building rules to the new interests of the changed body corporate. That group of people standing outside the building created a WhatsApp group to share their concerns and, possibly, to
decide on some course of action to address the situation. When the interviews took place in May and June 2016, the WhatsApp group seemed to be inactive and no specific action had been taken. The story, however, seems to confirm what already has been mentioned in some of the responses to the question “what, if any, changes have you seen in the building since you’ve been here?” in the survey. BODY CORPORATE POLITICS While the responses to the question “what do you value the most in the building” revealed that the body corporate was perceived as efficient, some residents also had a sense that the “rule of the few” had been established. This was reflected in statements such as “the body corporate has become more exclusive”, “there is a rule of few with similar mindsets” or “if you are not in that crowd, you have no power”. CIVIC TOWER’S FINANCIAL RESCUE Civic Towers is possibly the only residential building that has survived the 1990s and 2000s in Braamfontein without being taken under administration by the City of Jo’burg. However, this exceptionality did not exclude it from unpaid bills. Civic Towers was at risk of being taken under administration when a new group of people, many of them young professionals, laid their eyes o the building. The building reemerged from its risky financial situation when this “new generation of owners” started to buy apartments in the building and joined the body corporate. Outstanding bills were paid, taking the building out of debt. 43
WHAT, IF ANY, CHANGES HAVE YOU SEEN IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD? The responses for changes in the neighbourhood confirmed what had already been announced in the background section of this document: The neighbourhood is blooming. The change of establishments, the more active streets, the new infrastructure, the economic “bettering” of the neighbourhood, the safety increase, buildings being renovated and, most importantly, changes in the type of people in the neighbourhood. All these factors confirm the process of change that, in the case of Braamfontein, has often been classified as gentrification. Physical changes, this time, were not what respondents noticed the most although the question was exactly phrased as the previous one. This time there was not a type of response that prevailed over the others either. Responses were fairly distributed between different aspects of change. However, most of those responses are interrelated and speak about the regeneration of the neighbourhood and the consequences of that process. Three different types of responses clearly refer to this process. Firstly, the change of establishments and building use. Two respondents even mentioned that those were “new pubs, restaurants and coffee shops”. The increase of accommodation was also mentioned. Secondly, the change in the type of people that stays in the area. Last, the economic growth and increased economic value of the neighbourhood. Other changes such as the infrastructural related changes, may not appear to be related to this regeneration but they are. The increased public (and private) expenditure to make the neighbourhood look good is clearly related to the blooming 44
of the neighbourhood both as a cause and as a consequence. The logic can go both ways: Public expenditure is used to attract private investment in an area, or private investment goes first and the city follows as a wealthier and more influential group of people, business and developers moves into the neighbourhood. The use of street art, which is conventionally used as a cataliser for change in lower income neighbourhoods to make them attractive for a more “creative class”, does not look like a coincidence here. The same logic can be applied to other types of responses that came up. The upgrading of the buildings, again, can be a cause of the neighbourhood regeneration, as developers buy existing deteriorated building stock and fix it up increasing poperty value in the area and attracting wealthier tenants and / or buyers, but it also also be that buildings start to get upgraded as a consequence of the neighbourhood regeneration. Property developers may have invested in safety to increase the value of their properties but also the increase of safety may have been what attracted capital into the area. The increase of activity levels may have been what attracted investors and businesses or maybe the new developments were what created an interest in the area. Either way, cause or consequence, the matter is the same. Interestingly, two people mentioned that Braamfontein was not as busy as it used to be in 2014, when Braamfontein seemed to have reached its peak. A person also mentioned an increase of crime. Are Braamfontein times coming to an end? Even more, is Braamfontein starting to decay again?
What changes have you seen in the neighbourhood since you moved in? Increase pubs, restaurants & coffee shops Change of / new establishments Less offices Increased accomodation Change in building uses
2 6 1 1 10
3,0% 9,0% 1,5% 1,5% 14,9%
Safer Increased presence of security More lit up More crime Safety related changes
2 3 1 1 7
3,0% 4,5% 1,5% 1,5% 10,4%
Change of people Increase of students More hispter Younger users Group of men chilling on the corner Biccars & Stiemens More diverse community Changes on the type of people
1 4 1 1 1 1 9
1,5% 6,0% 1,5% 1,5% 1,5% 1,5% 13,4%
Street art Public wifi Buildings upgraded Increased public expenditure (trees, park, etc) Renovation South Braamfotein Bicyle lane Building renovations Infrastructural related changes
2 2 1 1 1 1 1 9
3,0% 3,0% 1,5% 1,5% 1,5% 1,5% 1,5% 13,4%
Economic growth Good suburb / from rundown to cosmopolitan Increased building value Rapid growth Economic value/growth changes
1 2 1 1 5
1,5% 3,0% 1,5% 1,5% 7,5%
More active night life Dynamic / great energy More cars parked More populous / busy Not as busy (as in 2014) Changes of activity levels
1 2 1 3 3 10
1,5% 3,0% 1,5% 4,5% 4,5% 14,9%
Louder Dirtier Street experience changes
2 2 4
3,0% 3,0% 6,0%
Less power for big developers, more power Wits Different representative coporates Change in development actors
1 1 2
1,5% 1,5% 3,0%
Closure aleyway behind Civic Towers Cat food sold at Pick & Pay Informal tradders banned Ballet studio opened a window More protests First Thursday started Other changes
1 1 1 1 2 2 8
1,5% 1,5% 1,5% 1,5% 3,0% 3,0% 11,9%
45
CONCLUSIONS Civic Towers shows an interesting paradigm of an area (or building in this case) undergoing a process of regeneration. To be more specific, we could even say that the building shows an interesting example of a Johannesburg inner city regeneration process, an area which was (and still is) feared by a large part of the city’s population. An area with this stigma often requires a “pioneer” for other people to follow. This is very clear in the case of Civic Towers. Many of the people who moved into the building in the last years have friends in the building who have served as their safe entry point. This has been accentuated by the intense development happening in the area, with new public and private capital flowing into the neighbourhood. Therefore, the safety to move or invest in the feared Johannesburg inner city is not only guaranteed by that friend or acquaintance who is already living there, but it is also backed up by a general re-development of the area. The data about the year that people moved into the building seems to indicate that the building is indeed being gentrified. However, the this information by itself may be deceiving. It may be a sign of gentrification but also a sign of a short rental turnover in a building were people constantly move in and out. Other stories that came up when people were asked about changes in the building, like the financial rescue of the building and the two stories about the division between the two different groups, together with the price increase of the apartments could back-up the idea of gentrification in the building. It has already been mentioned that one 46
of the limitations of the research was that certain questions were not asked to avoid neighbours being reluctant to participate in the research. Income of the household was one of those questions which would have brought light into the gentrification issue but may have caused discomfort among the respondents. Price of apartments that had been bought and rentals paid were also excluded. Therefore, this research can not conclude that the building is being gentrified with a 100% certainty although it can be said that many of the gentrifications signs are there. More research should be done in future years to understand the building dynamics and see whether the population change in the building is the regular status of short-term rentals proper of the Civic Towers and the area or it is the sign of a transition stage proper of a gentrification process. The arrival of a new group of people appears to be very welcome, as it also is the presence of the older group of residents. This is reflected in the question “what do you value the most in the building?” where 48.9% of the responses made reference to people living in the building. From those, 12.8% specifically mentioned “diverse and open community” and 23.4% referred to neighbours or friends in the building. The mix of people, quite unique for a racially and economically segregated city like Johannesburg, seems to be very appreciated however we have also seen that it has also been the reason for some issues. Several events show that there is a divide in the building between different groups. The diversity of people is as much a valued aspect of the building
as it is a contentious one. The conflict of interests and issues related to power dynamics display in the building undercover, however they do exist. The research suggests that we are in front of a paradox: People like being part of a diverse community however this diversity generates issues and tensions between different groups. If the diversity is eliminated to avoid the tensions, so will be one of the most positive aspects of the building (and the neighbourhood to some extent). This paradox suggests that there is a need for creative thinking around this issues to keep the most valuable assets of the building (or the neighbourhood) while minimising tensions. One positive outcome from the diversity of residents is the potential for income opportunities in the building. Some of those residents who may be struggling with rental and levy increases have the opportunity to work without leaving the building. At this point, the most organised service is a home-based laundry that provides a valuable services for those non-permanent residents who do not want to do their washing by hand nor to invest in a washing machine at this time while ensures regular income to one of the households. The diversity of the residents reflects in different needs and creates the potential for mutually beneficial relationships between different groups. This concept could be further explored as a potential avenue to mitigate some of the current issues.
47