AJ.-- Christopher Deportment of GeograPhy University of Port Elizabeth A CONSIDERABLEBODY of literature has been built up on the itnpact of legislated segregation in South Africa. Models of urban form have been propounded and tested on a number of the major centres of the count-ry..IThe purpose of this article is to examine the course of the experience of the population of Pon Elizabeth with regard to legalized segregation and its impact upon urban morphology. The city clearly exhibits the imprint of colonial and later regulations which result in a highly complex landscape yet relatively ordered distribution of population which are of considerable significance, and may be taken as an illumination of the features distinguished in other South African cities. sionary Spcietyin 1825.Nine yearslater a formal township THE COLONIAL INHERITANCE waslaid out to house this congregation.5The settlement wassituated approximatelyhalf a kilometre to the north- The site of Port Elizabeth had been guarded by Fort Frede- west of the original town, beyond the cemeteries. rick since 1799, but it was only in 1815that a formal township In 1847the CapeColonial governmentissued regulations was laid out and a further five years before it received its for the establishmentof greatermunicipal control overthe name. It is one of the distinguishing features of the city that indigenousinhabitants and encourag~dthe setting asideof it wasa British foundation, administered by British officials, distinct "native locations" to be built some "one or two appointed and later elected, from its inception.2 It may miles" (1,6-3,2 kilometres) from the main part of the therefore be expected that the city would have exhibited town.6 In 1855 the Port Elizabeth authorities established many of the characteristics of British colonial cities through- the first municipal location, adjacentto the London Mis- out the world, not least in its approach to the housing of sionary Society'sstation. The indigenous inhabitants were a multi-ethnic population. Singapore, founded only four funher forbidden to live outsidethe location,unless housed years later (1819), clearly demonstrated an attention to detail by their employersor were exemptfrom the lawsrestricting in the planning of separate sectors of the town for the several the indigenous population.7 Exemption and the franchise differing ethnic communities which were expected to settle there. 3 However, at first no such grand plan was envisaged were gained through the acquisition of fixed propeny or prescribedincome levels. Appropriately called the Native at Port Elizabeth as the town was not expected to grow to StrangersLocation, it wasindicative of the official concept metropolitan proportions. In fact, the European, Cape Malay that the indigenous Blackswere only a temporary part of and other immigrant communities settled in the town accor- the urban population. ding to economic and social status rather than as a result In the ensuing decadesnew municipal locations were of formal prescription. Even in 1855 the population had only establishedas the populationgrew and existingaccommoda- reached 4 793 of whom 3 509 were Whites (Table 1).4 tion becameovercrowded. Thus a seriesof sitesto the west of the city wasestablished which housedapproximately half TABLE 1 : POPULAnON OF PORT ELIZABETH 1855-1985 of the Blackpopulation of the settlement.One private loca- tion, Gubb's Location,was established and run independent- Year Whites Asians Blacks Total* (OOOs) (0005) (OOOs) (OOOs) (0005) 1 See for example RJ. DAVIES, The spatial formation of the South 1855 4 1 1 5 African city, GeoJournai (supplementary issue) 2, 1981,pp. 59-72; )J. Qu- 1865 7 2 2 11 VIERand P.S. HAlTINGH, Die Suid-Afrikaanse stad as funksioneel-ruimte- 1875 9 2 2 13 like sisteem, in F.A. VAN)AARSVELD (ed.), Verstedeliking in Suta-Afrika 1891 14 6 . 4 24 (Pretoria, 1985), pp. 45-61;). WES1ERN,Outcast Cape Town (Minneapolis, 1981). 1904 23 10 2 7 41 2 AJ. CHRISTOPHER,Race and residence in colonial Port Elizabeth, 1911 20 12 1 8 41 South African Geographical Journal 69, 1987, pp. 3-20. 1921 27 14 1 12 54 3 S.E. TEO and V.R. SAVAGE,Historical overview of housing change, 1936 54 28 2 30 114 Sinrpore, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 6, 1985, pp. 18-20. G.42!57 CAPEOF GooD HOPE,Abstract ofpopulation returns, 1855; 1951 80 46 4 71 200 G.20!66 CAPEOF GoOD HOPE, Census pf the Colony..., 1865; G.42!76 1960 95 68 4 121 288 CAPE OF GooD HOPE, Census ...1875; G.6!92 CAPE OF GoOD HOPE, 1970 120 95 5 167 387 Census ...1891; G.II-1904 CAPEOF GooD HOPE, Census ...1904; Transvaal 1980 120 106 6 296 428 Archives Depot, Pretoria (TAD), SlK 077-080, SlK 411-413and SlK 1052- 1985 131 131 7 233 502 1060 : Population censusesand enumerators' summary books, Pon Elizabeth district, for 1911, 1921 and 1936 respectively; Central Statistical Services, *Totals may not agreedue to rounding Pretoria (CSS), SlK 2112-2124: Population census, 1951 ..., Port Elizabeth district, and also unpublished enumerart>rs' returns and plans for the 1960, 1970, 1980 and 1985 population censuses. Nevenheless the presence of groups of indigenous per- ~ loNDON MISSIONARYSOCIETY, The report of the Directors to the sons in the vicinity of the town and the immigration of forty-first general meeting of the Missionary Society (lDndon, 1835). 6 Cape of Good Hope Government Gazette, 29.7.1847 (Government others led to the introduction of a formal system of segre- Notice, dated 7.7.1847, concerning Native lDcations). gation. The first evidence of this was the establishment of 7 EIIstern Province Herala: 29.5.1855 (Municipal regulations re Native a separatecongregation for the indigenes by the london Mis- Strangers lDcation). CONTREE 24/1988 ly. Here the Black population was permitted to build tradi- tional-style houses and brew beer, both of which activities were banned in the municipal locations. By the end of the 1911 centUry this was by far the largest location, possibly on account of the freedom which was afforded its residents. However, the growth of the city resulted in White and / Coloured suburbs being built adjacent to the Black loca- / tions. Demands for the removal of Blacks began in the 1860s and grew in intensity as the 19th century progressed.8 In- tercommunal riots in the 1880s resulted in the acceptance of a plan to remove those locations situated close to the centre of the town.9 Financial constraints and disputes over property rights, however, stalled the proposed removals. ~ White attitUdes to racial separation hardened in the late 19th Bethelsdorp century and were focused upon the 'sanitation syndrome'. This related the mixing of the races with the prevalence of disease,while segregation, it was believed, would leave both Whites and Blacks less liable to its incidence. Each outbreak increased the level of White demands for action.1O Finally, in 1901 bubonic plague broke out in the city and the opportUnity arose for the municipality to engagegovern- ment assistance.Contaminated houseswere demolished and the Black population removed from the central locations. Two options were open to the Black people who were evicted: they could either migrate to a new government location at \ New Brighton (some 8 kilometres to the north of the town), or they could buy or rent property outside the municipal boundary at Korsten.11The latter settlement was the site of "'"'--' '__r~--'-.-v"'" ( an unsuccessful speculative venture where plots were avai- lable at low cost and not subject to municipal bylaws. poputation I? 5 km municipal boundary Figure 1: Distribution ofpopulatIon. 1911. World War. Growth wasaccommodated within the predeter- mined colonial framework to which new determinants were added asthe central government assumed an increasing role in regulating urban development. Red Location, New Brighton, 1988.* Severalnew measuresrestricted the residential options of Pon Elizabeth's growing population. First, the lawsgoverning Black residence and occupation were tightened, notably By 1910 all Blacks not housed by their employers or able under the Natives (Urban Areas) Act of 1923 and subsequent to purchase property, were relocated outside the central area amendments. 13The municipality assumed responsibility for of the city. Furthermore, nearly half were accommodated establishing and maintaining Black townships, which were in formal locations or barracks-style housing, erected by the subject to strict controls limiting the influx of migrants from Harbour Board, while a further 30% lived in Korsten. The the rural areas,Restrictions on the purchase of property by Black population of Port Elizabeth was thus highly segrega- Blacks outside demarcated Black locations enacted under ted and subject to a major body of legal restraints on residen- tial options (Figure 1).12 POPULATION GROWTH AND INCREASING SEPARA- TION (1910-1950) 8 CAPEOF GoOD HOPE,Blue Book of the Colony, 1872(Cape Town, 1873),p. JJ17 (Repon of the Civil Commissionerof Pon Elizabeth). The Union period in Port Elizabeth wasone of considerable 9 A.10~83CAPE OF GoOD HOPE,Report of the Select Committee on the Port Elizabeth Native StrangersLocation Bill. growth. The population grew from 42 000 in 1911 to 10M. SWANSON,The sanitationsyndrome: bubonicplague and urban 200 000 in 1951 as a result of the massive influx of people nativepolicy in the CapeColony 1900-1909,joumal ofAfncan H,story 18, attracted by the opportunities offered by a broadening indus- 1977,pp. 387-410. trial base. The city expanded rapidly in area as new formal II A.15-1903CAPE OF GoOD HOPE, Report ofthe SelectCommittee on the Native Rese71leLocation Act. suburbs were laid out, and asa result of the erection of popu- 12TAD, S1K 077-080: Populationcensus, 1911, and enumerators'sum- lous shanty towns during and immediately after the Second mary books, Pon Elizabeth district. 13T.R.H. DAVENPORT,The beginnings of urban segregationin South Aftica : the Natives (Urban Areas)Act of 1923and its background (Gra- .AII photographs by Anne Christopher.