The Luthern Church, Sexton's Dwelling, Parsonage (Martin Melck House) and on the corner die VOC Grainary, all dating from the late 1700's. The picture was taken by Arthur Elliott ca. 1880.
By PENNY PISTORIUS
The root of concern about the historical Luthern heritage site in Central Cape Town - including the Luthern Church, Parsonage, Sexton’s Dwelling and VOC Grainary, all dating from the late 18th Century - is the significance of the heritage resource.
This urban block – bordered by Strand Street, Bree Street, Waterkant Street and Buitengracht Street – is redolent with it: historical, spiritual, social, cultural, spatial, archaeological, etc, etc.
All 18th Century built fabric is, due to the processes of history – decay, destruction and development – rare in South Africa. A concentration of 18th Century urban fabric such exists on this block, which includes the iconic Lutheran Church, is so very rare as to be PRECIOUS.
Gawie Fagan's achitects model of the proposed development of the Luthern heritage site. Picture: Marthinus van Bart
It is a surviving – and so far, intact, and authentic – part of an increasingly tenuous (but tough and significant) underlying web of our “ancient” (in SA terms) cultural landscape. It links to the Castle, Koopmans de Wet House, Heritage Square, the old City cemeteries in Greenpoint, the Company’s Gardens, the Slave Lodge and Groote Kerk, the old urban grid and its spaces – the Parade, Kerkplein, Greenmarket Square, Riebeeckplein & St. Stephen’s Church.
These are contextualised by the setting: the mountain, Table Bay as a harbour, the perennial streams; and by the displacement of people who used these resources before. This historical web extends around the mountain to Groote Schuur and Rustenburg. It represents the origins of “modern” settlement in South Africa.
This 18th Century urban complex is a bronzed shoe from the infanthood of the Mother City.
The Luthern Church, centre, with the Sexton's Dwelling, left, Parsonage (Martin Melck House), right, and the VOC Grainary, far right. Picture: Marthinus van Bart
In my considered opinion (short of doing the work) it could be part of an sequential Grade I (national) heritage site to include many of the sites mentioned above (and others) to do with the theme of “origins” – of settlement, and as a modern nation/people” – for lack of a better term.
During my time at BELCom I pleaded for a policy at province that would set in place at least a very rough series of ”sieves” based on date (and thus rarity), and which would give some initial guidance as to how to deal with the “catch-all” applications. Had that policy come into place, this urban block would surely have been a very big lump, and caught in the first sieve. That should have meant that public participation would be broad – a matter for “us-all”, the public. But it never came to be, and participation appears to have been too limited.
Unfortunately, the proactive part of the intended new heritage system has not developed as hoped. Systematic identification and grading is not occurring adequately within any sphere of government (local, provincial or national), nor at the unintentionally disempowered “community” level. We are all aware of critical resource constraints, and lukewarm (at best) political commitment.
Lady Anne Barnard's sketch of the original facade of the Luthern complex when Anton Anreith, German master sculptor, had just finished his decoration of the Church gable. It was later changed.
The aim of heritage resources management is to ensure that (necessary) development and change does not destroy or damage the historical/cultural foundations on which “we-all” build our future.
To my mind, this WHOLE Luthern block is so significant (“precious”) that it should be recognised, identified, protected and developed as a heritage resource. It is one of those which is so rare that it should be removed from the pressures of “commercial” development. Whether or not this is the case should be the core of the debate. Arguments about architectural appropriateness are secondary to the primary question of whether a radical intervention into such ancient fabric is appropriate at all. It is not really productive to focus on the secondary issue until we have settled the primary issue of significance.
This is what Gawie Fagan proposes to do with the precious and important heritage site.
Given the paucity of proactive identification and prior assessment of significance, ”we-all” have no option but to react when confronted with development that threatens an important part of “our” heritage foundations.
It is heartening that there IS a reaction, and a debate. Even at the height of Modernism, didn’t Solly Morris recognize the significance of this ancient urban complex and curve the proposed overhead highways to avoid it? That there is now a groundswell of resistance to ANY development on this block (however considered and sensitive that development attempts to be) indicates that “people” care, that they recognize its significance, and feel that that significance is threatened.
This is not a time to quibble about processes and procedures of participation, qualifications and registrations, or time frames, as Len seems to be doing. The general public has only become aware of the proposed development recently, and there has been an outcry. One hopes that the authorities will respond to the public concern positively and openly, in the spirit of the preamble to the National Heritage Resources Act.
* Penny Pistorius is an experienced heritage expert of Swellendam.
