I AM forced to voice my concern about the dilapidated property at the corner of Loop and Derksen Street in Paarl.
Amidst a debatable “public outcry” for removal of an irreplaceable architectural artwork, I am glad to be reminded that this landmark has secured its place through the ages because it represents an age when proud craftsmen of our village cemented their legacy throughout the province.
What also gladdens my heart is that our republic has a National Heritage Resources Act on which I can rely for support to oppose any action supporting demolition.
It is a fact that all of us have a responsibility to preserve and protect our cultural heritage, not only because this building is older than 60 years (for there are many old buildings deserving of removal from eyesight), but because it represents a visible monument of what our grandparents could achieve during the earlier years.
They were no academics, but we attribute the success of the building period of their time, to their qualified knowledge of the building trade, something we do not see anymore.
I often see overseas visitors wander around town, visiting historical landmarks around the CBD and along Main Street.
I am thus compelled to tell the town council to stop spending millions of rand on research and overseas trips to create viewing pads for the public during the Soccer World Cup and rather direct their efforts and money towards supporting owners of such buildings who struggle to maintain our cultural heritage sites.
Our town council can be the first to budget for assistance for preservation of cultural heritage.
Although an individual may have the deed of such a property, the whole community owns the site, for we share a common responsibility to preserve our heritage and valuable built environment for future generations.
Experienced in restoring such “dilapidated” buildings, I have stood amazed to see in what good structural shape the building still is, contrary to more than one consultant’s report in support of demolition.
Although the west wing had suffered substantial damage due to a fire, this does not necessitate demolition of a whole historical landmark. I have seen buildings in a worst state before restoration.
There is much to be learned about craftsmanship displayed in this architectural masterpiece, which paved the way for the construction knowledge we possess today, if we embrace the route of restoration.
The placement of the internal doorframes with architraves on just one side, is notable for it represents a stepping stone from Cape vernacular to Georgian or Victorian as we know it today, together with the presence of a loft doorframe, in an internal loft wall of one side, indicating a point of reference when one dates the different sections of this symmetrical building.
The abutments are so typical and it aligns itself with the era when financial capacity declined. The type of load-bearing structure and the material used will never be matched even if we try our outmost best.
The un-burnt clay brick and mud-smeared, thick walls, rendered with lime, high ceilings with loft space for storage, timber floors and specially constructed sash windows, remind me of the progress made in construction technology in time of our forefathers. The position of the building with its sash windows virtually in the street is another interesting characteristic.
With a bit of research and imagination this landmark can be a basis for a profitable development, although minimal in floor space, but high in aesthetic and architectural value. Some developers believe that the bigger the floor space, the higher the return, but the opposite can also be proven.
Why is it that we spend all our savings to go visit ruins overseas in Italy, Spain and the likes, but we ignore the fact that we also possess the same, which appeals to world travellers and historians.
According to the National Heritage Resources Act, a place or object is to be considered part of the national estate if it has (inter alia) cultural significance or other special value because of its importance in the community, or pattern of South Africa’s history; its possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritage; its importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group; its importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period; or its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social, cultural or spiritual reasons.
The fact that the building is illegally occupied, the occupants causing nuisance to the tenants across the road and the size of rats running to and from the site, cannot justify granting a demolition permit.
John Pheiffer
