© University of Pretoria

2.1// THE FORTIFICATION OF THE CAPITAL CITY

As Pretoria was the capital city of the The Jameson Raid (1895-1896) large- former ZAR Government (1852-1902), ly contributed to the second fortifica- its fortification was a critical project in tion period, when the Boer Republic

a final attempt to retain control over was forced to reconsider its defence the former Transvaal. One of the ma- strategies. Taking advantage of the jor drivers in the annexation of the elevated vantage points on the ridges, province was the discovery of gold in four independent forts had been con- 1886(Van Vollenhoven 1998:2). structed by 1898 on the surrounding peripheries (see Figure 4). These are Pretoria was established in 1855 and Fort Wonderboompoort (northern por-

its central location was valued by both tal), Fort Schanskop, Fort Klapperkop the British and the Boers, resulting in a (southern portal) and what was then known as Fort Daspoortrand (western ceaseless battle for supremacy. Due to its natural topography, the surround- portal), later renamed by the British as ing ridges were utilized as elevated Fort West. vantage points and strategic locations to protect the entry portals and railway As a result of a disagreement be-

routes into the city (Van Vollenhoven tween the ruling authorities of the 1998:2-24). It is also important to note time, the design and construction of Fort Daspoortrandwas assigned to a the contextual value of the surrounding ridges that connect a series of his- French firm called Schneider and Co., torical artefacts across South Africa. whilst the other three were built by a German contractor, Heinrich C. As a result of this ongoing conflict be- Werner (Bolsmann 2008:208).

tween the British and the Boers, the fortification project was a continu- In 1900 the British reclaimed Pretoria ous process. Both opposing forces for the second time and constructed

contributed to it over three consecu- additional forts in a third fortifica- tive periods between 1880 and 1902. tion attempt. With the vulnerability of During the period of the first fortifica- the railway connections across the tion (1880-1881), British forces oc- country, the British implemented the

cupied Pretoria and were responsible blockhouse system to ensure an inde- for the construction of a number of structible stronghold. Due to their size, blockhouses and three forts, namely these blockhouses could easily be

Fort Royal, Fort Tullichewan and Fort constructed along the railway routes 2.1 Commeline. According to Van Vollen- and at important road crossings hoven (1998:12-40) a total of eleven and, according to Van Vollenhoven fortifications were erected during this (1998:177), amount to a total of 8000.

period, but unfortunately most were Figure 2.1: Historical map of the capital destroyed in the intense struggle to re- city indicating the fortification process gain control. 7 02/CONTEXT and the position of Westfort (Au- 8 thor:2016)

2 Fort Klapperkop 1898

3 Fort Wonderboompoort 1898

2 Fort Schanskop

1898

Figure 2.6: Fort Wonderboompoort after construction (Van Vollenhoven:1996) 3 2016

Figure 2.2: Fort Schanskop after con- Figure 2.4: Fort Klapperkop after construction (Van Vollenhoven:1996) struction (Van Vollenhoven:1996) 4 2016

Figure 2.5: Fort Klapperkop today (Au- 1 thor:2016) Figure 2.7: Fort Wonderboompoort today

(Author:2016) 2.8

Figure 2.8: Current map of Tshwane indicating the position of Westfort in rela- tion to it’s counterparts (Author:2016) Figure 2.3: Fort Schanskop today (Author:2016)

9 02/CONTEXT 10

4 Fort Daspoortrand (Fort West)

1989 1987

Figure 2.9: Fort Daspoortrand after construction (Van Vollenhoven:1996)

Figure 2.10: Fort Daspoortrand in ruination (Van Vollenhoven:1996)

Figure 2.11: Current map of Tshwane 2.11 indicating the position of Westfort in rela- 11 02/CONTEXT 12 tion to its counterparts (Author:2016)

km 2

5km

Westfort precinct Fort West

WESTFORT PRECINCT LOCALITY PLAN Figure 2.12: Locality map of Westfort 2.11 situated on the western edge of Pretoria (Author:2016) 13 02//02/CONTEXTCONTEXT 114

Original name Fell into ruination Gradual + Passive Process Fort 1913 1989 D issertation DaspoortranD 1987 F o C us invading British forces built Construction completed 1 1954 1968 WestFort BloCKHouse 1km from Fort Original intention Fort West protect the p ublic Entrance gateway with steel doors still intact Aerial photograph of Fort Daspoor- First documented aerial photograph (Van Vollenhoven 1998:315) trand (Van Vollenhoven 1998:330) of Fort West indicating the destruc- Dated contstruction tion of the roof Fort Daspoortrand during construction 1948 methods therefore (Van Vollenhoven 1998:329) isolated & Forgotten (Van Vollenhoven 1998:325) Excavation of entrance and no use for fort passages (Van Vollenhoven ruin Fort sCHansKop 2 1980 1998:315) Fort KlapperKop 3 D estroyeD & a B anD oneD

Fort WonDerBooMpoort 4

Archival photographs indicating First documented aerial photograph Fort West being partially excavated Fort West eroding away today as a forgotten ruin on Fo RTIFICATI FIRST second FortiFication on Fo RTIFICATI THIRD the fort after completion of Fort West indicating the destruc- Fort Daspoortrand abandoned and in by treasure hungers (Author 2016) Process of (Van Vollenhoven 1998:30) Sister Alfonsa with leper patients visiting the tion of the roof Decay (Van Vollenhoven 1998:329) (Van Vollenhoven 1998:330) old Fort (NASA archive collection) Multiple artefacts found during (Van Vollenhoven 1998:329) “ruination” excavation (Van Vollenhoven 1880 1900 1998:315) 1885 1898 1906 1916 1940 1997 2016

Medical 1985 Process of 1880 1886 1899 New Function 1975 advancement 1945 “ruination” poliC y Daspoort pretoria Renamed as CloseD “Contagious Hospital leper WesFort 1956 DoWn

Disease 8 patients institution Hospital 1938 a B anD oneD act” Original Intent 1916 1977 researCH Treating patients segregated Community inD epen D ent poliC y Laboratory for Smallpox (NASA archive collection) FarM VillaG e “Leprosy Segregation Octagonal Church at entrance gate Fell into 1896 1906 All amenities Law” (NASA archive collection) ruination s M all VillaG e Racial Segregation Fresh Produce Repelled by Additional facilities by Wierda amongst patients Schools researCH Original intention Westfort Village today (Author 2016) 1897 Churches Swiss Church at Westfort Watch towers at multiple protect the p ublic (NASA archive collection) poliCy Police station entrance gates Rapid Process Post office etc. (NASA archive collection) “leprosy segregation law” Aerial view of WestFort Village (NASA archive collection) Wedding ceremony (NASA archive collection) Patients in front of chronic section lying in the sun for treatment (NASA archive collection)

WESTFORT PRECINCT HISTORICAL TIMELINE

15 02//02/CONTEXTCONTEXT 116

Fort WonDerBooMpoort 4

Medical 1985 Process of 1880 1886 1899 New Function 1975 advancement 1945 “ruination” poliC y Daspoort pretoria Renamed as CloseD “Contagious Hospital leper WesFort 1956 DoWn

Disease 8 patients institution Hospital 1938 a B anD oneD act” Original Intent 1916 1977 researCH Treating patients segregated Community inD epenD ent poliC y Laboratory for Smallpox (NASA archive collection) FarM VillaG e “Leprosy Segregation Octagonal Church at entrance gate Fell into 1896 1906 All amenities Law” (NASA archive collection) ruination s M all VillaG e Racial Segregation Fresh Produce Repelled by Additional facilities by Wierda amongst patients Schools researCH Original intention Westfort Village today (Author 2016) 1897 Churches Swiss Church at Westfort Watch towers at multiple protect the p ublic (NASA archive collection) poliCy Police station entrance gates Rapid Process Post office etc. (NASA archive collection) “leprosy segregation law” Aerial view of WestFort Village (NASA archive collection) Wedding ceremony (NASA archive collection) Patients in front of chronic section lying in the sun for treatment (NASA archive collection)

WESTFORT PRECINCT HISTORICAL TIMELINE (continue)

17 02//02/CONTEXTCONTEXT 118

2.2// THE WESTFORT PRECINCT

As mentioned earlier, the former Fort Although highly sophisticated, sump- Daspoortrand was assigned to a tuous and unique in comparison to its counterparts, Bolsmann (2008:209) French firm and only later renamed by the British invaders as Fort West. The argues: German engineers as well as the Ger- … it was considered man community were highly disgrun- ‘a warship with broadsides, tled due to its “French style” and its dif- stranded in the veld’

ferent approach to the design, spatial

configuration and finishes (Bolsmann Only in 1898 when the construction of 2008:209). the fort was completed, was it realised that these fortifications were designed

This fort was the biggest of them all, as earthen redoubts with underground hexagonal in shape, facing both north bombproof rooms based on the re- and south, with electrical hoists to quirements of the ammunition of that 2.13 support two magazines powered by time. Given the rapid advances in am- tangue oil engines. With multiple tun- munition technology, it was realised nels, all the rooms were connected that the fort was outdated even before to each other and arranged around it was finished, and would not be able

the central courtyard. Two dynamo to withstand a bombardment with cur- engines were positioned to power rent or future explosives. As impres- sophisticated search lights, and a tel- sive as it was, not a single shot was

ephone line connected to the central ever fired from the fort during the war telegraph office meant that it operat- (Bolsmann 2008:210). ed in conjunction with the other three

forts. According to Van Vollenhoven

1998:118), in 1905 the fort was con- All the facades were executed in sidered as a possible future prison, ‘dressed free-stone’ with meticulous but after inspection it was found to be

attention to the lettering work. The unfit due to its neglected state at the imprinted detail and extravagant en- time. The fort was dismantled, the roof trance portal was by far the most im- removed, and all the rooms stripped pressive and imposing compared to down for the main steel components.

all the other forts (Van Vollenhoven Considering the endless battle over the 1998:98). The elongated entrance por- control of the Pretoria forts, it is rather tal was signified by its five arches and ironic that it was so easily abandoned

had a double set of steel doors and a and forgotten by both the British and 2.14 waiting room to ensure its safety. the Boers. Figure 2.13: Floor plan of Fort West as commissioned by archaeologist (Van Vollenhoven 1996) Figure 2.14: Aerial photograph of Fort 19 02/CONTEXT 20 West (Author 2016)

LEEPING ROOMS) (S ACHINE ROOM) (OFFICE) M

ACHINEN ( CANONWESTERN POSITIONSHoisting emBANKmamu devicenitionamuentnition rooSTAIRSm stNORTHERNunnelproviand ekmBANKmeuk rooenHospita (kment itchen(foodOfficierenl storage)ManschapenTE)LEGRAFM (TEeasternLEPHONEHIDDEN e mBANKmROOentrance TMUNNE) stabentL GATEWAYlesSouthernSTAIRS eramBANKmmp UNDERGROent UND water tank

OLD MUNICIPAL RESERVOIR

Figure 2.15: Site analysis of original 2.14 intent & materials of Westfort (Author 2016) 21 02/CONTEXT 22

2 8

1 3 5 7 9

Figure 2.16: Site documentation of 2.15 Westfort in its current condition (Author 2016)

23 02/CONTEXT 24

As part of the unique history and cul- Leprosy (also known as Hansen’s dis- Apart from being segregated from tural significance of the precinct, the ease) is a chronic and infectious dis- ‘normal society’, leprosy patients were former Westfort Leprosy Institution ease that manifests through the nerve further segregated according to racial,

should also be considered for its valu- system on the skin of individuals. If the gender, mental and physical health able contribution to South African her- disease was not well managed, the policies (Horwitz 2006:274). As new itage. nerve system could be damaged, lead- information and knowledge became ing to numbness in the limbs and re- available, policies had to be reconsid- Figure 2.17: Patient check-up with doc-

The Westfort Leprosy Institution sulting in deformities of targeted body ered, in order to inform and educate tors on site, 1979 (NASA Archive collec- Although it created a major upheaval parts. Even before the discovery of the both the patients and society in the tion: 2015) Figure 2.18: One of the patients at in South Africa during the early 1900s, biological cause of leprosy, patients collective effort to control this epi- Westfort Hospital, 1963 (NASA Archive leprosy was a feared and miscon- were condemned and kept at a dis- demic. collection: 2015) ceived disease, which historically tance from inhabited areas out of fear Figure 2.19: A Wedding accompanied by the military orchestra, 1933 received little attention in South Af- of the unknown (Breed & Grünewald In 1922 a Leprosy Policy was approved 2.17 (NASA Archive collection: 2015) rica when compared to other countries 2013:54). by the Government towards research Figure 2.20: Patients lying in the sun as (Horwitz 2006:271). action, which placed high value on part of their daily treatment ritual, 1941 Horwitz (2006:272) believes that lim- the ongoing process of documenta- (NASA Archive collection: 2015) ited local research has failed society tion, examination and surveillance of

by not providing insight into both the the disease (Kistner 2014:240). At first, history and the socio-political issues quarantine might have been consid- related to the disease, its biological re- ered the obvious solution to control lations, and the isolation policies con- all venereal diseases. Yet by 1940, the nected with it. With the introduction of effective result of collective and thor- the Contagious Disease Act in 1880, ough research had proven this idea to the treatment of communicable dis- be a fallacy (Kistner 2014:5).

eases was highly regulated by public health legislation, which resulted in the South African laws governing the 2.18 2.20 establishment of multiple treatment compulsory segregation of patients

facilities – as seen in the western parts were already repealed in 1977, after of Pretoria (Kistner 2014:2). research proved that leprosy is fully treatable; yet, these laws were en- The growing concern for and fear of forced for another 20 years. Horwitz

the disease forced the former govern- (2006:291) states that the government ment (the Transvaal Volksraad) to act ignored various social, economic and on what had by then become an epi- political factors in reconsidering the

demic. In 1897 President Paul Kruger function and value of the Westfortin- put the Leprosy Segregation Law into stitution, and therefore never deter- effect, and the following year Westfort mined its future use. Leprosy Institution opened its doors.

At that time Robben Island also ac- commodated a leprosy asylum which- was only closed in 1931, after which

it was integrated with Westfort as the only multiracial leprosarium in the country (Horwitz 2006:278). 2.19

25 02/CONTEXT 26

An independent village Before the leprosy epidemic, the former Daspoort Hospital (named after

its location) was intended as a research facility dedicated to the treatment of smallpox.

A former superintendent of Westfort Hospital, Dr A van Zyl (1989:75), ex- plains that, although it was initially

called the New Pretoria Leprosy Asy- lum, it was later known as Westfort Leper Institution and in 1979 was renamed to Westfort Hospital. Before its completion in 1888, it had already been adapted into a leper asylum as a project under the ruling ZAR Government

(Kistner 2014:3). The architect Sytze

Wierda (1839-1911) was the Chief 2.22 2.21 Architect of the Public Works Depart- ment in service of the government, and As the demand for treatment in- This institution was intended, by de- was responsible for designing addi- creased, the village had to be extended sign, to function as an independent vil- tions to accommodate more patients. to accommodate more patients and lage with all the necessary amenities By 1896 the Daspoort Hospital housed specific facilities. A post office,- po and recreation facilities to make the

99 patients, and by 1902 it accommo- lice station, schools, churches and patients as comfortable as possible. dated 328 patients (Kistner 2014:3). shops were just some of the facilities Yet, given the careful attention afford- that were added. By 1900 the hospi- ed to the built fabric with the State’s Wierda was determined to design a tal managed its own farm which pro- best intentions, the patients were place that represented a certain het- vided most of the fresh produce such deeply traumatized by being forcefully erotopia, a home away from home, as meat, poultry, fruits, vegetables removed from their loved ones and be- but it was still an asylum disguised and even honey through bee farming ing considered as the ‘outcasts of so-

as a beautiful small village. In his own (Delport & Saggacci 2015:47). This ciety’. words he describes his approach: again highlights the significance of the 2.23 Westfort Hospital establishment as an Reading through the countless plead-

… to provide, in the most hu- independent and self-sustaining coming letters at the National Archives of Figure 2.21: Security gate at colored munity. mane way a pleasant and at- South Africa (NASA 2015), one comes male section, 1945 (NASA Archive col- tractive residence for those to realise the agony behind the isola- lection: 2015) “unfortunates” who, through Although the establishment flourished tion and the social turmoil as a result Figure 2.22: Native male patients section, 1941 (NASA Archive collection: as a small village, patients still yearned of the ongoing segregation and per- an incurable infectious dis- 2015) for a connection with the real world haps wrongful policy making at the ease, should be tied to it for Figure 2.23: Westfort Leper institution and a sense of belonging to society. time. Another concern that cannot be as long as they lived. and self-sustaining village, 1956 (NASA By 1917 a series of eight watch towers ignored is the collective memory of Archive collection: 2015) (Meiring 1980:15) were constructed to prevent patients place and how this independent village from escaping and to protect the pub- is remembered by the patients, their lic from the unwanted disease (Delport loved ones, the health care community, 27 02/CONTEXT 28 & Saggacci 2015:48). and the general public.

1899

1914 1916

1931

1938

1964

1. Entrance road 23 12 2. Watch tower 3. Graveyard

4. Dutch Reform Church 11 5. Administration 6. Post Office 22 7. European patients quarters 10 8. Recreation room 9. Hospital 10. Police station 6 3 11. Nurse quarters 14 2 5 12. Access to Fort 15 13 4 13 Catholic Church 7 14. Pharmacy 8 15. Theatre

16. Native quarters 9 16 17. Kitchen and inspection rooms 17 1 18. Anglican Church 19. Patients quarters 18 20. School

21. Native quarters 20

22. Staff quarters 19 23. Fort 21

WESTFORT HISTORICAL SITE DEVELOPMENT

Figure 2.24: Historical map of site devel- 100m 250m 500m 1km 2.24 opment at Westfort (Author:2016)

29 02/context 30

AERIAL VIEW OF WESTFORT VILLAGE IN CURRENT CONDITION Figure 2.25: Aerial view of Westfort in its 2.25 current condition (GIS Department:2016) 31 02/context 32

2.3// THE PROCESS OF RUINATION

Today it is assumed that very few peo- replaced by the South African Heritage ple know of the existence of Westfort Resources Agency (SAHRA) in 2000 and what is left of it. After its destruc- (SAHRA 1988:2). Fort Klapperkop was

tion in the early 1940s, the fort was first restored to its original state and vulnerable to vandalism and exposed converted into a military museum in to the natural processes of erosion 1966, whilst the same procedure was and weathering. Due to its hidden na- also followed at Fort Schanskop in

ture and surrounding context, the fort 1978 (Van Vollenhoven 1998:350). Ac- is generally considered unsafe for curi- cording to SAHRA (1988:34), owner- ous visitors, which contributes further ship of Fort Wonderboompoort was

to its isolation as a lost historical bea- transferred to the City Council of Pre- con from the forgotten past. toria in 1954. It was only partially restored in 1986, after which it was de- Those who have ventured to this lone- clared a provincial heritage site.

some ‘battleship’ can still appreciate the grandeur of its unique design, but Sadly, Fort West was never declared a are left with questions as to how this provincial heritage site, and although

majestic historic artefact could so it is under the protection of SAHRA, easily have been abandoned and for- it remains ‘unprotected’ and vulner- gotten over the years. able to destruction (Van Vollenhoven 1998:240). It is evident that over the Some articles in the South African years the ‘unprotected’ Fort West was Panorama (1989, 1963), Pretoria News even further stripped down for its steel (1997, 2006, 2009) and Pretoriana components. Until 2008 the unique

(2009) (see Annexure) describe con- and prominent steel doors at the en- cerned history enthusiasts who have trance gate were still in position, yet attempted to raise awareness of the together with all the iron hinges, han - forgotten memories and the signifi- dles and lettering, these were blatantly cance of all the forts. One particular taken and probably found their way to article in the South African Panorama the nearest scrap metal dealership. titled ‘Silent Forts’ (Visser 1963:20) As the structural and decorative steel

requests the governing authorities to elements formed an integral part of take the lead in the campaign for res- the structural integrity and authenticity

toration, yet calls on citizens to protect of the fort, it is crucial to reconsider its and preserve the memory of these ne- use and value in the design process. glected cultural artefacts. Figure 2.26 Sketches from site visits at In 1938 both Fort Klapperkop and Fort the Fort (Author 2016) 2.26

Schanskop were declared as national monuments under the old National Monuments Council (NMC), which was 33 02/context 34

Fear or fascination? With the de-sanctification of the city In recent years society has gone from there is always that peculiar hidden fear to fascination and obsession with

artefact (or what is left of it) that fos- ruins, which is either engendered by ters the popular perception of a ruin a fear of the old or a curiosity of what as a wasteland, dangerous and truly it might become. Burrell and Dale ‘unsightly’. Yet, ruins are sites of nu- (2011:112) state that this fascination merous potential activities that could might lie in the liminal state between easily be enmeshed in the existing polar opposites. social context as places of adventure,

cultivation, shelter and creativity that … the ruin as organisation and potentially provide an alternative pub- disorganisation, the ruin as lic platform (Edensor 2005:21). architecture or dust, order and chaos, humanity or nature.

In the context of the city, Edensor (Burrell & Dale, 2011:113) (2005:22) argues that ruins are an integral part of capitalist expansion, These conflicting tensions are evident reminding us of the temporal state of in the historical and architectural re- our human existence as well as that of mains of both the fort and the former the built environment. Yet traces and institution. They stand in a relationship detail found in these forgotten ruins of a certain ‘otherness’ which is lost

highlight the mystery of the past and in the present, yet reminds one of the simultaneously invoke a need to tell forgotten past. With their current state stories about it. resulting from isolation and abandon-

ment, these artefacts are in desperate [The form of ruins] must be re- need of a collective plan of action. The spected as integrity, embody- answer to whether the site should be ing a history that must restored, rehabilitated or completely

not be denied. In their dam- erased to make way for new meaning aged states they suggest new might just lie in their individual and collective heritage value. forms of thought and comprehension, and suggest

new conceptions of space that Figure 2.27: Photograph of entry portal at Westfort in it’s current condition

confirm the potential of (Author 2016) the human to integrate itself, to be whole and free outside

of any predetermined totalising system. (Woods, 2013:331)

2.27

35 02/context 36

Similar to the fort, the functional intent The alarming concern still to be ad- of the institution was instantly redun- dressed is the heritage value of this dant when leprosy was no longer seen unique cultural landscape and its ex-

as a threat to society. In 1997 Westfort posure to the ongoing process of ruin- Hospital closed its doors and, despite ation. It is possible that these historical its cultural richness, was abandoned artefacts will soon be completely di- and irrevocably became part of an ex- minished in value and forgotten, which tended process of ruination (Horwitz will surely be a great loss to our collec- 2006:290). tive South African heritage.

Since its closure in 1997, roughly 5000 Due to a lack of understanding of the illegal informal settlers have occupied tangible and intangible consequences the site and the historical buildings, of isolation and ruination, this phe- claiming self-appointed ownership nomenon is sadly accelerating in soci- over the property (Breed & Grünewald ety. Apart from the forgotten memory 2013:60). Although there are no re- of the heritage fabric, the people and corded data or proof, it is speculated the landscape, this process of ruina-

that the new occupants of Westfort tion is still one of the biggest threats are likely also considered by society to fostering a sense of continuity and 2.29 as ‘outcasts’ due to their employment, belonging. migration, racial and social status.

After the doors were closed the site has been cut off from any municipal

services, but is provided with a limit- ed water supply to accommodate the most basic needs of the newly estab-

lished Westfort community (Breed & Grünewald 2015:60). Apart from water limitations, these community members live under very harsh conditions

and are forced to find alternative resources in the fight for survival.

The historic buildings have now been 2.28 Figure 2.28: Functioning St Mary’s stripped and adapted to suit the needs hospital complex (1963) (NASA Archive of the inhabitants. Livestock freely collection: 2015) graze over the landscape, gardens Figure 2.29: Collage of St Mary’s hospital complex with current and historic con- boast fresh fruit and vegetables, and at text overlap generated in Honors year as every corner someone is busy collect- part of site analysis (Author 2015) ing, transforming or creating some- Figure 2.30: St Mary’s Hospital building thing that might be sold for another in current condition (Author 2015) day’s survival.

37 02/context 2.30 38

1942 Westfort Orthodox Church Native men patient complex

2.31 2.32

Figure 2:.31: Aerial view of Westfort precinct (1942) (NASA Archive collection:

2015) Figure 2.32: Aerial view of Westfort precinct in current condition (Author 2016) Figure 2.33: Functioning Orthodox Church at Westfort (1952) (NASA Archive collection: 2015) Figure 2.34: Orthodox Church at Westfort 2.33 2.34 2.35 as community hall (Author 2015) Figure 2.35: Remains of the Orthodox Church at Westfort after a protest action (Swart 2016) Figure 2.36: Native men patient complex

at Westfort (1941) (NASA Archive collection: 2015) Figure 2.37: Re purposed rondawels for pig farming (Author 2016)

2.36 2.37 39 02/context 40

WESTFORT PRECINCT SITE BOUNDARIES Figure 2.38: Aerial view indicating pro- 2.38 ject site boundaries (Author:2016)

41 02/context 42

2.4// CONTEXTUAL PRECEDENTS

THE Amer Fort Complex

Location : Jaipur, India

Date : 11th - 17th century Architect : Raja man singh

Key words Cultural landscape Landscape conservation Movement

Tourism

As previously mentioned, cultural One of the key determinants in this

landscapes are an integral part of a project was the overlaying of move- nation’s heritage, exhibiting multiple ment patterns and thresholds. The 2.30 stories of our shared cultural heritage planning of the trail was informed by over time. Similar to Fort West and its the development of and additions to

military counterparts, the Amber Fort the complex over time, such as the complex in Jaipur is a good example historical, water, cultural, archaeologi- of re-appropriation over time, as well cal and tourist trails.

as an experience of the authenticity of place. In the hope of serving as a conservation model for the larger network of Along with six other hill forts in the forts in Jaipur, this project illustrates

state of Rajasthan, this fort complex that the Westfort can also benefit from has recently been added to the tenta- rehabilitation through landscape con- tive list of World Heritage sites in an servation. Not only does the rehabili-

attempt to preserve its shared heritage tated site contributes to the city’s eco- significance (Rajora 2013:2). As part nomic growth, but also to the shared of a thesis project, Rajora (2013:30) memory of place. focussed on landscape conservation 2.41 2.42

through experience and interpretation Figure 2.39: Amer Fort complex upon ap- of place. By extending the presup- proach from village (Wessels:2016) posed heritage periphery from building Figure 2.40: Map of Jaipur indicating its relationship to the Fort complex (Ra- to landscape, the project introduces jora:2013))

a series of experiential interventions Figure 2.41: Multiple routes up to the connected by a variety of walking Fort complex (Wessels:2016) trails. Figure 2.42: Circulation and tourist trails (Rajora:2013) 2.40

43 02/context 44

THE GenadendaL Conservation pro ject

Location : Genadendal, Western Cape Driven by the community members Date : Established: 1738 themselves, the project aimed to pre- Case study: 2008 serve the original heritage fabric and Architect : Braaksma & Roos unique construction techniques of the Cape vernacular region. The ini- Key words tial idea, as proposed by the restora- Shared heritage tion team, was to restore three critical Community involvement points of interest: the fertile valley for Participatory agricultural development, the central church as the heart of the settlement, Action plan and the natural surroundings to pro- 1. Training, communication & 2.43 mote eco-tourism. marketing 2. Town improvement & clean-up 3. Accommodation management 4. Integration with nature Over the centuries it became

5. Community based cultural tourism a place associated with the 6. Music as tourist attraction coming together of people- from different racial groups. As part of the shared heritage projects In addition to being the first approved by the Ministry of Education, permanent Khoi settlement at Culture and Science of the Nether-

lands, the restoration of Genadendal is the Cape, it was also a place an example of community integration of sanctuary for more than a 2.44 to restore a sense of pride in the so- thousand slaves when slavery cial and cultural identity of place (Roos was abolished in 1838.

2002:336). Built on the site of the old- – Nelson Mandela est mission station in South Africa, (Roos, et al., 2009:vii) Genadendal was established in 1738.

Even today it still reflects the richness The promotion of social sustainability of both the tangible and intangible her- and local knowledge and capacities is itage layers that were developed over the main successful outcome of this time (Roos et al. 2009). project. This collaborative conserva-

tion effort illustrates the benefits of investing in a shared identity and collective memory of place.

Figure 2.43: Community members from Genadendal (Roos:2008) 2.45 2.46 Figure 2.44: Elevations and plans of original built fabric (Roos:2008) Figure 2.45: Restoration and construction by community members (Roos:2008) Figure 2.46: Restoration of local cottage 45 02/context 46 (Roos:2008)

The Lalibela borders, and today their structural Rock-hewn Churches integrity is compromised by natural forces of weathering and erosion

Location : Lalibela, Ethiopia (Hecht & Kidane 1983:211). Apart from Date : 11-12th century the latter, annual pilgrims, festivals and Architect : unknown tourists are also exacerbating the de-

terioration process and should be con- Key words sidered in the heritage management Heritage Tourism programme. Indiginization

Construction Perhaps what strikes the visitor the Experiential most is the expectation of a monu- mental experience, and yet on ap-

Hidden in the northern part of Ethiopia, proach these churches are humbly

in the province of Wollo, lies the legend- situated below the vista, which makes 2.47 ary town of Lalibela. Its authenticity is them unique to the church typologies celebrated by the presence of eleven of their time. In contrast to the tradi-

remarkable rock-hewn churches. tional method of constructing from the ground upwards, these churches were Except for the weekly market day, hewn out from the roof downwards

this town is perceived as just a quiet (Hecht & Kidane 1983:130). 2.48 mountain village, yet it is home to an internationally renowned 900 year old The construction process shows simi- World Heritage site (Fraser & Ruther larities to that of the fort, as the em- 2013). Today the denomination of the phasis was on in situ removal rather still functioning Ethiopian Orthodox than addition. What is interesting is Church is a fascinating study in indi- that the builders had to work with the

genization and the ongoing commit- unconventional, the negative, and the

ment to preserve its functional legacy. process could therefore almost be de- 2.50 scribed as a process of ‘archaeology in In 1978 the rock-hewn churches of reverse’. This World Heritage treasure 2.52 Lalibela were inscribed by UNESCO on is truly one of a kind. It successfully the World Heritage List as one of the celebrates authenticity of place and first restoration projects to be -spon heritage value, as well as an experien-

sored by the World Monuments Fund tial journey. in the 1960s, and have since then been part of various international conserva- Figure 2.47: Pilgrims gathering around

tion projects to preserve this treasure the church of St George (Davey 2010) Figure 2.48: Section indicating the vis- as an international legacy (Negussi ibility planes (Ching 2007:113) 2010:1). Figure 2.49: Exterior Facade two churches (Zamani Project :2011)

Similar to Westfort, these hidden Figure 2.50: Temporary roof structure for protection (Grace et al 1967: 23) structures are also vulnerable to mod- Figure 2.51: Elevation of two churches ern threats and in need of continuous (Zamani Project :2011) rehabilitation. At first they required Figure 2.52: Section indicating the vis- 2.49 2.51 47 02/context protection from enemies beyond their ibility planes (Ching 2007:113) 48

Conclusion

Luckily the concern for both Westfort It is clear that Westfort Village should and the former institution has found be subject to either a formal or infor-

common ground amongst academics mal systematic approach that protects and professionals, political stakehold- the site from encroaching developers ers, former patients, and current com- and new inhabitants. Westfort Village

munity members (Delport & Saggacci is considered an established com- 2015:42). The continued interaction munity that not only protects and between these critical stakeholders preserves the site, but has also estab- is of great importance in the protec- lished a new informal economy that is

tion of the cultural significance of the integral to the continued existence of site, as well as the inclusion of current the site. As custodians of the site, the socio-economic concerns. Westfort community is considered as

critical stakeholders in the successful In 2012 a heritage survey of the West- future valuation of the entire precinct. fort Hospital complex was conducted to direct the approach to the future de- In an attempt to realign the signifi- velopment of this significant cultural cance of this historical site with its val- landscape. Naudé (2012:2) highlights ue and possible future intentions, the the importance of not only placing following chapter will form the theo-

value on the historical and architec- retical premise for the design process. tural fabric, but also on its existence The theory should assist the process of understanding the heritage value, as a single entity in a contemporary context, which includes the social, cul- the identity of place, and the experien- tural, historical and environmental fac- tial potential of the Westfort precinct, tors contributing to the uniqueness of in order to determine an appropriate place. design response and programme.

Figure 2.53: Potential strategies for the Based on a recent research study by 2.53 Westfort precinct as one holistic entity Delport & Saggacci (2015:42), it is (Author 2016) clear that there is information miss- ing regarding ownership of the site, the intentions of future development, and the use of both the village and the fort.

Although the site is under major threat from developmental pressures, it is interesting to note that the site bounda-

ries have not yet been breached and are still clearly demarcated in accord- ance with the original site peripheries (see Figure 36).

49 02/context 50