uct heritage park management framework - University of Cape Town

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20 call documents would be advertised to the private sector for further development and operation of the three identified nodes being The Zoo site, Mount Pleasant and Rhodes Memorial. 2.3.12 UCT, Rondebosch/Observatory Campus: Development Framework Plan (DFP), Physical Planning Unit, Revised March 2010 The DFP is intended to guide the nature and form of all proposed physical development once approved by the University Council. It was the culmination of planning processes initiated with the appointment of consultants (Dewar, Louw and Southworth 2005 – refer to section 2.3.14) to prepare “A long term spatial development framework and Urban Design Concept for the University of Cape Town”, commonly known as the “Guide Plan.” The Guide Plan together with an Access Management Plan (2005), a number of Heritage Assessments and a Landscape Framework Plan (Oberholzer 2006) and substantial internal discussion informed the DFP. The DFP was also informed by metro-wide planning and policy, local area planning as well as planning work associated to adjacent land holdings such as the Groote Schuur Estate (GSE). The GSE-Conservation and Development Framework is particularly relevant. The Guide Plan and this Framework are consistent in their approach to the future of the forest and parking. The Forest is seen as an important evergreen backdrop to the classical set piece (Jamieson Hall, stairs and residences). Neither plan sees the Park having a parking role for students. The DFP responds to a number of institutional informants, the most important being the fact that 25% of students live in university residences and this is expected to increase. The university is planning to be able to accommodate an additional 25% who are presently drawn from outside Cape Town. However it should be noted that UCT does not propose any new development on upper campus. Future development will be on the middle or lower campus where densification is deemed more appropriate and feasible. The implications are however that the campus as a whole will need to perform optimally as a living environment, servicing those who do find themselves living ‘on site’. The DFP states clearly that there is no intention to expand the current estate beyond its defined boundaries with the exception of two locations - Rustenberg Junior School and a site near the Observatory Campus on Main Rd. There are no intentions of using the Zoo site although the DFP does propose that UCT initiate “collaborative development initiatives” with SANParks related to the Zoo Site. This is not seen as a priority and is only foreseen to be a reality if funding from other parties is forthcoming. Development opportunities mostly contribute to densification of the middle and lower campus to create a more urban environment, although green aspects are excluded. The green landscape framework is proposed to be reinforced through consolidation of green fingers running vertically down the hill from Rhodes Drive/M3, and the horticultural consolidation of specific heritage precincts where appropriate. A set of performance criteria were defined, to guide and form the basis of evaluation of all future spatial proposals, these are as follows: • Equity: relates largely to the issue of access, particularly for those on foot and those with disabilities; UCT Heritage Park Management Framework: Final Draft Report, July 2012
21 • Integration: with the surrounding community, local urban systems especially transport systems, between various parts of the campus and departments and between people historically separated by social and cultural barriers. The last aspect is proposed to be addressed through the creation of a system of informal, public gathering spaces; • Dignity: infers that by the making of an environmentally and socially supportive environment, there is support for the campus as a key social and educational institution of excellence; • Heritage conservation: refers to the need to respect architecturally-, horticulturally- and culturally significant buildings, landscapes and use patterns, etc. It was for this reason that the Plan responds in detail to heritage assets confirmed through the heritage studies undertaken between 2000 and 2006. The assets of most relevance to the site in question are the group of buildings associated with Jamieson Steps referred to as the “Classical set piece”; and, • Landscape, Placemaking and Legibility: refers to the need to focus on the nature and quality of open space linking the built precincts, buildings and surrounding landscapes, the object being to make the public realm more humanely scaled, safer, more comfortable and coherent. Hence the structuring of the Plan according to key spatial principles contained in the Landscape Framework and Urban Design Concept put forward by Dewar, Louw and Southworth (2005). While the DFP focused on the form of new development it also focused extensively on the location of new development in relation to vacant and underutilised land in a way that facilitates improved integration between the campuses. Transportation and pedestrian access networks are thus an important informant of the Plan. Safety through improved lighting, CCTV, emergency bollards, trimming of vegetation and more responsive building interfaces are suggested. The DFP states categorically that pedestrians are to be accommodated in all situations before vehicles. Parking is not seen to be a priority for investment and it is proposed that no new bays are provided, since the University’s preference is rather to focus on managing access to campus. 2.3.13 Landscape Framework Plan (LFP) for UCT (2006) (Prepared by Bernard Oberholzer Landscape Architect) The LFP intended to inform the Long term Spatial Framework developed for the UCT Campus in 2005. Covering the Lower-, Middle- and Upper Campuses, it was based largely on interviews, review of previous reports and investigations on foot. The LFP set out to formulate policy resulting in principles, policies and guidelines to achieve consensus and a basis for decisionmaking. The Landscape Plan included planting themes and a management strategy to guide further implementation. The spatial aspects of the plan were informed mostly by the Long Term Spatial Development Framework and Urban Design Concept for the University of Cape Town (Dewar, Southworth and Louw 2005). Despite the fact that it appears that this document was not well received by the Physical Planning and Landscape Sub-Committee (PPLSC) it provided a good basis for future spatial planning in the form of structuring principles. The LFP undertook a survey of all relevant planning documents and compiled a list of issues. Issues pertinent to the site included: • Lack of progress in implementation of an invasive species clearing programme as well as a replanting strategy; and, UCT Heritage Park Management Framework: Final Draft Report, July 2012
Page 1 and 2: UCT HERITAGE PARK MANAGEMENT FRAMEW
Page 3 and 4: 2.3.11 Groote Schuur Estate: Conser
Page 5 and 6: 1 INTRODUCTION UCT Heritage Park Ma
Page 7 and 8: Figure 2: Aerial view of the Univer
Page 9 and 10: 1.5 Purpose of this document UCT He
Page 11 and 12: UCT Heritage Park Management Framew
Page 13 and 14: UCT Heritage Park Management Framew
Page 15 and 16: 11 • Where contextually appropria
Page 17 and 18: 13 2.3.6 Draft Cape Town Developmen
Page 19 and 20: 2.3.8 Groote Schuur Estates Landsca
Page 21 and 22: 17 • UCT was officially establish
Page 23: 19 2.3.11 Groote Schuur Estate: Con
Page 27 and 28: 23 Close inspection of the Plan (Fi
Page 29 and 30: 25 Planting • Reduce use of pesti
Page 31 and 32: 27 With regards to specific proposa
Page 33 and 34: 29 Fauna Gallaher (2009) continues:
Page 35 and 36: Figure 8: Land uses on the Universi
Page 37 and 38: 4.2 The Forest 33 The UCT Heritage
Page 39 and 40: 35 The elevated edges along the Rin
Page 41 and 42: 37 5. MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK AND SPAT
Page 43 and 44: 39 • Improve the use and manageme
Page 45 and 46: 41 5.5.1 Description of hard and st
Page 47 and 48: 43 The role of screening shrubbery
Page 49 and 50: 45 Table 2: Proposed outputs and ph
Page 51 and 52: 47 involve removing cluster pines i
Page 53 and 54: Output 4.3) Opportunities for work
Page 55 and 56: 51 • City of Cape Town’s Manage
Page 57 and 58: APPENDIX 1: REPORT ON THE FOREST BY
Page 59 and 60: 55 APPENDIX 2: PROPOSED PLANTED LAN
Page 61 and 62: Rhus tomentosa Leucadendron daphnoi
Page 63 and 64: Name: Tall Shale Fynbos Description

uct heritage park management framework - University of Cape Town

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?