Blurring the Line: Privatisation and ‘Publicisation’ at the Victoria \u0026 AlfredWaterfront,...

$Page 1: Blurring the Line: Privatisation and ‘Publicisation’ at the Victoria \u0026 AlfredWaterfront, Cape Town$
11

Blurring the Line:Privatisation and ‘Publicisation’ at the

Victoria & Alfred Waterfront, Cape TownMyriam HOUSSAY-HOLZSCHUCH et Jeanne VIVET

“On the waterfront, we see glimpses of new city-making paradigms,partial visions of what our cities might be. […] The visibility of thesesites means the waterfront becomes the stage upon which the most impor-tant pieces are set.” (Marshall, 2001: 4-5)

One such glimpse is offered in Cape Town, South Africa, by theVictoria & Alfred (V&A) Waterfront. This mixed-use property develop-ment located around Cape Town’s original harbour was created at the endof apartheid, as the local form of waterfront rehabilitation found world-wide. It boasts several pedestrian outdoor alleys along the quays, as wellas offices and housing, and is organised around the Victoria Wharf mall.Such developments have been identified as being characteristic of post-modern urban forms and dynamics (see e.g. Davis, 1990; Marshall, 2001;Soja, 2000; Sorkin, 1992). Globalised consumerism thus is said to shapeworld cities, for instance through so-called disneylandisation and theprivatisation of public space.

Cape Town is of course no stranger to these evolutions, although theSouth African context of political democratisation and post-apartheidtransition has made these global processes more complex. As Haferburget al. have argued, “Among a few other cities, Cape Town is the examplewhere the intended annihilation of social and spatial barriers of apartheidhistory meets intended and unintended effects of globalization leading tocomplex and multilayered forms of transformations” (2003: 1).

The V&A Waterfront is a fascinating example of such changes. As amall, it exemplifies the convergence of economic and social factors,

market-driven necessities on the one hand, and the perceived need formore security on the other – in building the city. Privatisation – of publicspaces, security or urban governance – is the main consequence of thistendency. Nevertheless, though a space, designed for and first patronisedby an overwhelming majority of white people1, attracts today Capetoniansfrom all walks of life as well as tourists. It thus constitutes a remarkableplace of ‘togetherness’ in a metropolis still overwhelmingly characterizedby segregation. One reason for this success is, paradoxically, the feelingof safety guaranteed by the private management, which is obtained byresorting to private security companies. Intended and unintended effects,local and global processes interact to produce an original space that offerstheoretical challenges to social scientists.

By focusing on the urban practices of individual actors, we want tooffer a contrapuntal reflection on how people can have a say in modellingtheir city, through their daily socio-spatial routines. By analysing the caseof the V&A Waterfront, we do not claim to shed light on the overallevolution of malls or traditional public spaces in Cape Town (on thispoint, see for instance Dodson, 2000; Marks and Bezzoli, 2001). We hopeto show how, in this specific case, the line between the public and theprivate is becoming blurred.

Indeed, public space appears here as a complex notion criss-crossingof the political, juridical and social dimensions of urban life. As the V&AWaterfront case shows, we should address the notion of public spacedynamically, through the twin processes of privatisation and what wesuggest calling ‘publicisation’.

The V&A as a Mall

Yet another waterfront rehabilitation…

In line with common contemporary processes of urban restructuring,Cape Town’s old industrial harbour underwent a dramatic transformationat the end of the 1980s as disused buildings and outdated quays wereredeveloped into a shoppertainment attraction for White Capetonians(Birk, 1998). Victorian storehouses became a huge shopping mall,currently boasting 100 000 m2 of commercial space, 68 restaurants,

SÉCURITÉ DES QUARTIERS ET GOUVERNANCE LOCALE270

1. In this paper, while we are aware of the political implications of each term, we shallfollow the usual conventions and use the above categories as they are understood in theSouth African context.

taverns and eateries, 7 hotels, and 240 retail outlets2. Entertainment facili-ties include two multiplexes, an IMAX dome, the Two Oceans Aquariumand the South African Maritime Museum (see Photo 11.1, cahiercouleur). Also located at the Victoria & Alfred Waterfront are the depar-ture of various tourists tours, especially cruises. In addition, it hosts theNelson Mandela Gateway to Robben Island, the only possible access tothe famous prison and a major tourist attraction.

Benefitting from the grand natural amphitheatre of Table Mountain inthe background, the Waterfront takes advantage of an exceptional site,combining water and mountain scenery indoor shopping and outdoorstrolling, a pseudo Victorian atmosphere and post-modern glamour (seeFigure 11.1 cahier couleur).

Cape Town was built around the harbour after the arrival of Jan vanRiebeeck and the VOC (The Netherlands East India Company) in 1652,and was the first European settlement in Southern Africa. As such, it hasplayed a double role throughout the centuries: both the ‘Mother City’ ofwhite colonisation and the ‘Gateway to Africa’ (Worden and vanHeyningen, 1996: 216). A cosmopolitan society, inherited from interna-tional exchange and slave trade, emerged during the 19th century and thecity was dubbed the ‘Tavern of the Seas’. Following the rise of trade,several harbours were successively built to accommodate bigger ships aswell as fishing boats: a Victorian harbour was substituted for the original18th jetty, itself replaced by Duncan Dock after WWII.

The increasing industrialisation of the docks went together with agrowing division between the city and its harbour: reclaiming the Foreshoreand the construction of freeways separated the CBD from the sea. From the1970s onward, due to changing international trade conditions, the portentered a state of decline, culminating in real decay by the 1980s (Goudie etal., 1995; Worden and van Heyningen, 1996). Simultaneously, the nearbyCBD lost most of its shopping activities, moving towards the suburbs.Central Cape Town was thus in dire need of redevelopment.

The municipality of Cape Town took advantage of available landwithin the harbour to kick-start economic growth. The idea was to revivethe city’s old image. Riding an international wave exemplified inBaltimore, San Francisco or Sydney, they developed leisure and commer-cial activities in disused harbour facilities. This development wasachieved through what Worden and van Heyningen (1996: 222) call‘privatisation in its peculiarly South African form’: Transnet, the publiccompany owning the land, was to provide a long-term lease, and theprivate sector was in charge of its development. The Victoria & AlfredCompany was formed to implement this aim in 1988. This specific

BLURRING THE LINE 271

2. www.waterfront.co.za.

public/private partnership complicates the question of land property, asthe land stays public, but the mall built on it is private and managed assuch by the V&A Company. Moreover, there is an opposition betweeninside and outside juridical regulations as the outdoor alleys are legallypublic and thus subjected to public domain administration, whereas theinside restaurants and shops are private.

Several phases of construction over more than a decade have produceda composite space: Victorian warehouses have been internally trans-formed into a central shopping mall, while their ornate and restoredfacades still gaze upon the piers. The food court, partly shaded byarcades, connects the inside mall with the outside promenades; fishingboats, renovated sailing boats of past centuries, or passing ships stoppingfor repair show a working harbour, an image enjoyed by flâneurs3 (seePhoto 11.2, cahier couleur). Thus, the Waterfront still conforms to themodel of “the pier, that English symbol of popular seaside entertainment”(Worden and van Heyningen, 1996: 217). In other words, the treatment ofspace within the V&A Waterfront matches what Chivallon described inRives d’Arcins (1998) and what Goss (1993) identified before her. Inorder to produce a ‘place’ in the mall, designers have used two models:the ‘traditional’ city centre model for the inside, and the ‘local and patri-monial’ model for the outside. Both models relate to a rather strangeVictorian-Mediterranean harbour concept as opposed to the idea of apublic park (as in Rives d’Arcins).

The V&A Waterfront benefits from the lack of traditional publicspaces such as squares or gardens (Le Grange, 1994), to be found in thecity. Most public spaces are located in the oldest part of the city – the“City Bowl” – and were inherited from the colonial era. Moreover, LeGrange (1994) has shown how urban fragmentation implemented byapartheid planning was especially detrimental to public spaces, as placesfor people to meet where the primary targets of the segregationist policy.Besides, due primarily to security fears, Cape Town’s Central BusinessDistrict is almost completely deserted during weekends (Lemanski,2004). The shops are closed and the streets empty. The V&A Waterfrontthus combines several assets: it is located in the heart of Cape Town (nextto the city centre and to the Atlantic seaboard suburbs of Green Point, SeaPoint and Mouille Point, see Figure 2). Also, the Waterfront is accessiblewith public transportation (kombi-taxi, bus, train).


3. We use the term along Baudelaire and Benjamin’s lines. For a fuller discussion, seeHarvey (2006: 29).

Private and secure

As Davis (1990) and others pointed out, malls around the world havebuilt their success on the fact that they are construed as secure spaces: asanitised environment is created, through careful monitoring of sensa-tions. Temperature, light, music, perfumes, etc., contribute to a globalimpression of comfort (see e.g. Goss, 1993; Sabatier, 2006; Sato, 1998;Sorkin, 1992; Watson and Gibson, 1995). Cleanliness and efficiencydistinguish it from ‘the street’. Social comfort is ensured by excludinganyone who does not conform to Western, middle-class, behaviour,norms and values.

The V&A Waterfront is no different and follows international stan-dards. Moreover, the South African context of high crime, violence andparanoid perception of insecurity makes security the prime factor as far asmarketing is concerned. The small management has to ensure securityand, at the same time, advertise it strongly. Security should be effectiveand visible. The Waterfront has one of the most extensive and advancedsecurity systems for a development of this size, amounting to an annualbudget of R8 million. It proudly announces 24-hour surveillance insideand outside, guaranted by the presence of over a hundred cameras, andproclaims the Waterfront an environment with a zero tolerance policytowards crime. The bright yellow uniforms of over 60 private securityguards are everywhere to be seen. The cameras are discreet although byno means hidden from view. They are certainly conspicuous enough forconsumers to feel that they are in a ‘secured’ environment. The architec-ture and planning of the actual Waterfront contribute to the feeling ofsecurity: numerous open spaces, no dead ends, a well-lit environment,and a sense of friendly “eyes” watching out for one another.

The V&A as image

The image of an upmarket mall as a safe, clean and socially controlledenvironment is a key asset for the company, and has to be preserved at allcosts: any dent would affect its frequentability, especially for the touristswho constitute a strong component part of visitors, i.e. 42% in 2000 (seeFigure 11.2 infra). 90.7% of international tourists in the Western Capevisited the Waterfront in 2004, compared to 22.4% who took a townshiptour4. In 2006, 59.6% of all Western Cape visitors (including domestictourists) came to the Waterfront5. However, when the People Against


4. South Africa Tourism, www.tourismcapetown.co.za, accessed June 2006.5. CTRU analysis, 2006, www.tourismcapetown.co.za, accessed June 2006.

Gangsterism and Drugs (Pagad) vigilante group bombed the WaterfrontPlanet Hollywood in 1998, the image of the Waterfront was damaged andthe total number of visitors decreased.

Figure 11.2. Visitors to the V&AWaterfront

Source: www.waterfront.co.za, accessed June 2005 and July 20066.

This “sumptuous blend of Victorian architecture, maritime tradition,and African culture”7, as described proudly by the V&A Waterfrontwebsite, has been so successful in the recent years that its image has beenused to advertise the city of Cape Town, if not South Africa as a whole.The Waterfront thus embodies fabulous landscapes, modernity, glamour,and so-called African authenticity as far as souvenir shops are concerned.Widespread social problems such as violence, poverty, HIV/AIDS andsocial inequalities fade away. As such, the Waterfront functions as adisneylandisation of Africa, the explicit aim of its designers (Goudie etal., 1995; Worden and van Heyningen, 1996: 222). Like other mallsaround the world, it recreates a simulacrum of European traditional publicspaces (e.g. Capron, 1996; Goss, 1993; Sato, 1998, Sorkin, 1992). One ofour interviewee described the place as a “clean cocoon”.


6. Unfortunately, more recent data is not available on the company’s website. Despiterepeated attempts between 2001 and 2005 to see representatives of the V&A Companyhead office, no interview was ever granted.

7. www. waterfront.co.za, accessed June 2006.

Profile of the Waterfront flâneur

The V&A Waterfront is indeed a mall, and functions as such: artificial,private and consumerist, it has attracted the wrath of scholars who under-line its negative aspects and their far-fetching consequences in the SouthAfrican context (Dodson, 2000; Marks and Bezzoli, 2001; Ryan, 2005).Shearing and Kempa (2001), for instance, acknowledge the fact thatSouth African malls are no longer racially exclusive, but argue that:

“Anyone of colour is permitted to enter the new fortified fragment ofthe new apartheid, providing they are both economically capable andwilling (these two things are intimately intertwined) to engage in thetypes of activity characteristic of North American or European cultures.For instance, anyone may enter the mall provided that they intend toengage in ‘shopping for entertainment” and outwardly appear that theyhave the wherewithal to do so.” (2001: 208).

They go as far as describing malls as a key feature of “Neo-apartheid,[which] much like its official predecessor, works through co-opting nonwhites into participating in its processes.” (2001: 208). They conclude,“what starts out as a search for security becomes a programme of sociali-sation and indoctrination into Western values” (2001: 208).

Such a derogatory view does not reflect the complexity of the placeand the way it has been embedded in Capetonian city life. A closer loo8

shows a different picture.

A desegregated place

Observation over a decade demonstrates a dramatic change in visitorprofile. Goudie et al. insisted in 1995 on the monochromatic frequenta-tion of the Waterfront, an exclusively white leisure area just after the endof apartheid. Worden and van Heyningen (1996) even report racial inci-dents of township shoppers being harassed. But the 2005 figures reflect a


8. Our data has been collected in several phases: observation began in 1994, exploratorystudies and counts were first done in 2000 and 2001. Systematic counts were carried outbetween February and April 2005. A specific location (at the seaside entrance of theVictoria Mall) was chosen and passer-bys were counted during15 mn. It was done everyhours (from 10:00 to 18:00), during weekdays and over the week-end. A rough breakdownby race was based on physical appearance, as it would reflect common racial assumptionsduring social interaction. Targeted interviews with shop managers, security guards, and 30informal questionnaires with patrons were also conducted during the same period.

very different reality (see Figure 11.3 infra and Photo 11.3, cahiercouleur). Coloured Capetonians, who constitute the majority of the city’spopulation and who were not to be seen at the Waterfront in 1995, arenow strongly present. Even if they live far away in Cape Flats townships,Africans do come in growing numbers. When compared to the racialprofile of the population of Cape Town, Whites are still overrepresented,however, this is at least partly due to the presence of international touristsvisiting the Waterfront: over the years, the United Kingdom and Germanyhave consistently ranked first and second respectively on the numbers ofinternational arrivals in the Western Cape9. Despite the influx of Whitetourists, however, over 60% of Saturday afternoon visitors are not white.

Figure 11.3. Breakdown by race of V&A visitors, Saturday afternoons

Source: Authors’ counts February-April 2005.

The striking racial heterogeneity can be broken down into finerpatterns of frequentation. Whites patronise the Waterfront all week long,whereas Africans and Coloureds are relatively absent on weekdays(around a third of all visitors) and come en masse on Saturdays andSundays. Day patterns show a global increase from 10:00 a.m. onward,with a peak hour reached around mid-afternoon. Whites tend to come inthe morning and are present throughout the day, while Coloureds andAfricans arrive later.

A racially desegregated place, the Waterfront also shows some socialheterogeneity: the majority of the visitors we interviewed can bedescribed as middle-class – or, for retired people, were middle-class whenthey worked. Roughly 50% of all interviewees came with a car, and they


9. South African Tourism, www.tourismcapetown.co.za, accessed June 2006.

work in the service sector. But our qualitative sample comprises also athird of working-class and unemployed people, as well as localpensioners. These figures are confirmed by other indicators, such as useof public transportation – a strong racial and social marker in SouthAfrica – for just fewer than 50% of the sample, place of residence in poortownships or squatter camps, and level of education. 53% of all intervie-wees had completed their secondary school education. Two people hadattended primary school only, and one had never attended school at all.Although social diversity appears more limited than racial variety, itexists nevertheless.

A test situation for evaluating V&A Waterfront social heterogeneity ishow street children are dealt with. Preserving the ‘clean cocoon’ oftenmeans physical exclusion of unwanted patrons since the mere presence ofstreet children or other marginalised people damages the image of themall. Private regulations authorise the security staff to prevent peoplefrom entering the premises as indicated by the “right of admissionreserved” sign. But such an action is not possible outside the building: onpublicly owned land, it is of course illegal to remove anyone or evendisplay signs prohibiting beggars. Management and security guards arepowerless and street children roam freely. For one of the guards: “They’rea nuisance. They disturb people. But if they do nothing, we can’t donothing; we struggle with them all the time”10.

The significance of this is all the more remarkable in the SouthAfrican context. The legacy of apartheid is a very fragmented city in bothracial and social terms (Christopher, 2000; Dupont and Houssay-Holzschuch, 2005; Houssay-Holzschuch, 1999). Residence patterns stillconform to the 1953 Group Areas Act regulation: Coloured and Africantownships defined by law under apartheid remain racially exclusive andmixed neighbourhoods are few on the city scale. Social segregation fitsthis racial pattern: poor neighbourhoods are located in African andColoureds areas, whereas affluent areas are found in former whitedistricts. Hence residential desegregation remains very limited in CapeTown, as in other South African cities. What the V&A situation shows isthat there are sites for social desegregation to occur, even if it is only for afleeting moment.


10. Personal interview, 9/4/2005.

Flânerie at the Waterfront

The variety of V&A patrons can first be explained by the diversity ofactivities offered and practiced. Shopping is of course one of them, but,paradoxically, is not the primary activity practiced in this mall, since only21% of all visitors interviewed do their shopping there (see Figure 11.4infra). 40% of sample interviewees do not spend money there but comefor flâneur activities, that is to enjoy the place, stroll through it, rest onbenches, enjoy the urban and natural scenery or listen to free musicalshows. A further 35% put social activities first when they come to theWaterfront, i.e. they come to have a drink, a snack or a meal with friendsand family or to go to the movies. It is a usual meeting point for peoplespending their free time with their friends.

Figure 11.4. Visitors’ activities at the V&AWaterfront

Source: Authors’ interviews, February-April 2005.

The V&A Waterfront also functions as a stage, at two different levels:it is a stage for street performers, but also a place for self-representation(Joseph, 1984 and 1998). The V&A Waterfront management uses themetaphor of the “theatre” and describes the Waterfront as “a veritabletheatre of activity”11. Its aim is to offer “something for everyone”12. Thewide variety of attractions and entertainment available makes the V&A


11. www. waterfront.co.za, accessed June 2006.12. www. waterfront.co.za, accessed June 2006.

Waterfront a popular venue for locals and foreign visitors alike. Indeed,music bands and street performers (singers, theatre groups, fire blowers,contortionists, clowns and gumboot dancers among others) offer cornershows and entertainment in the outdoor amphitheatre (see Photo 11.3).The managing company selects the performers and organises all theshows and, in doing so, control the reconstitution of a lively public space.As in the American malls described by Goss (1993: 19), “designersmanufacture the illusion that something else other than mere shopping ingoing on”. In fact, the architecture of the place as well as the shows puton are part of a marketing strategy. The entertainments attracts morepotential consumers and the amount of spending is expected to be directlyrelated to the amount of time spent at the mall (Goss 1993: 22). Thisstrategy is successful inasmuch as entertainment does make the V&A anattractive place and incite people to stay longer, but our data show that itdoes not necessarily make them spend more money. People come to theWaterfront very regularly, once a week for the majority13. Going there hasthus become part of their weekly routine, going just for the fun of it andwithout necessarily spending money. They use and have appropriated theWaterfront in a way that is more consonant with what it was originallydesigned for. Urban practices here lead to a diversification of the func-tions of the mall. The commercial activities now go hand in hand withcultural activities and social mingling.

In addition to providing entertainement through various shows, theWaterfront is also a place of self-image. It functions like a live stage, asocial theatre (Joseph, 1984 and 1998). Young girls get well-dressed tocome and spent time parading down the alleys. It is the place to be, theplace to see and to be seen. A lot of people come to the Waterfront only to“watch”, to observe others, foreigners and locals alike (see Figure 11.4supra). Some people come every day to observe, like this retired 87years-old Coloured lady: « I do nothing. I just look around; move around.It’s my past time. It’s nice and free. »14

South African paradox or the power of the local

The V&A is a globalised urban form, mixing a renovated waterfrontand a mall (Ghorra-Gobin, 2001; Goss, 1993; Marshall, 2001;Vermeersch, 1998). But the South African context gives it a wider signifi-cance. Its unique location, combining the seaside with a mountainousbackground is not the only asset bestowed by the locale.


13. Cf. Informal questionnaires with patrons. (January-April 2005).14. From our informal questionnaires (January-April, 2005)

The first significant contextual element to take into consideration forunderstanding today’s V&A Waterfront is chronology. The renovation ofthe harbour took place during the very last years of apartheid, and thecommercial complex opened during the political transition. Hence theplace, as it is today, did not have the time to be appropriated as an exclu-sively white space, even if it was at first patronised by Whites only(Lefebvre, 1974, Hossard and Jarvin, 2005). For instance, the reluctanceof traditional fishermen to be displaced in favour of the new developmentsparked local debates (see e.g. Goudie et al., 1995; Worden, 1996;Worden and van Heyningen, 1996) and brought to light alternative appro-priations of a central urban space. The political climate of the time wasmore prone to allow this kind of voice to be heard than to silence it byforce, as would have been the case a few years before. Even if theirdemands were not granted, they were claiming a ‘right to the city’(Lefebvre, 1974; Mitchell, 2003), a tentative step in a democratisingregime. But the recent character of the mall made it a relatively accessiblespace for Coloureds and Africans.

The chronological context also explains why incidents such as the1993-1994 harassments of township shoppers at the Waterfront wererapidly stopped. As apartheid ended and the ANC was voted into power,such episodes raised a public outcry: Coloureds and Africans were gainingtheir rightful place in their own country, and to refuse them access to aspace was against the historical tide. This kind of symbolic events wasalso a disastrous public relations mistake for the V&A. Under the newregime, previously disadvantaged individuals were to be respectedcustomers and racist attitudes could only damage a potential market.

Lastly, the political context of the beginning of the 1990s sparkedvarious initiatives recognising local and alternative histories: history wasno longer to be a White’s privilege; other stories were also to be heard onan – almost - equal footing. Cities were especially chosen as targets forthis kind of action, symbolically ending the eviction and exclusion ofpreviously disadvantaged groups from urban spaces. Hopes of gaining thetownship market, political correctness, democratic symbolism andactivism from local historians dovetailed positively: the V&A Companyagreed to put up informative boards at key locations on the Waterfront(Worden 1996; Worden and van Heyningen, 1996), explaining theworking history of the harbour, e.g. the hardships endured by sailors,slaves and convicts. Patrons were encouraged, via leaflets, to take the“Historical Walk”. A sensitive location – the harbour - thus escapedcomplete sanitisation of its site and history.

Around the world, malls are described, for better or worse, as the“arch spaces” of globalisation. But globalisation takes on a local meaningin South Africa. It first marked the end of economic sanctions and inter-


national isolation: the ‘pariah State’ was no more, democratisation wasoccurring under the highly respected figure of Nelson Mandela. Thenegotiated revolution gathered worldwide support and a ‘South Africanmiracle’ was hailed. The growth of trade, tourism and exchanges – i.e. themain phenomenon of globalisation (Harvey, 1989a) – was proof of thecountry’s success. This is not to say that globalisation had no negativeimpact on South Africa: well-analysed economic processes linked toglobalisation, such as loss of competitiveness for local industries,retrenchments and rising unemployment, among others, hit South Africavery hard, especially from the second half of the 1990s onward. Socialmovements reacted against such trends and actively promoted alternativeways. But the initial interpretation of globalisation was very positive.Globalised spaces, such as the V&A Waterfront, offered goods that werenot easily available before because of economic sanctions. Their glamourand international style contrasted positively with the dullness of apartheidSouth Africa. Their shameless consumerism was a nice change afterdecades of racist Puritanism. Interviews with patrons confirm this inter-pretation:

“It is the most beautiful place I have ever seen.” (Coloured male,printer-publisher, 41)

“I like the entertainment, like the music; and also you can see peoplewho are in TV, you can see celebrity, famous politicals.” (African male,security guard, 27)

“It is different to what I grew up with. It is very expensive. You havedifferent stuffs: shops, movies, restaurants... all the different things youcan do in one place.” (White male, professor, 41)

“It is sophisticated.” (Namibian female, schoolteacher, 48)“This place is a sort of entertainment. There are people from all over

the world.” (African female, unemployed, 53)

Sophisticated ‘shopertainment’, an international character and a differ-ence from ‘old South African’ spaces are what people reply when askedwhy they come to the V&AWaterfront and what they like or dislike there.

The South African political and economic context thus distorts theperception of the Waterfront, and informs the spatial practices ofCapetonians. Another factor also plays a key role in this: in a violent city,security is obviously a prerequisite for frequentation. The high level ofcrime and the far-reaching feeling of insecurity both contribute to pushingpeople towards what they think are ‘safe’ spaces (Johnston and Shearing,2003). Tourists and locals’ opinion of the Waterfront underlines this:


“I read in a book that it is the safest place in South Africa.” (Germanfemale, retired in South Africa, 78)

“I never cross any incidents here. People are well behavioured [sic]here.”(Coloured male driver, 60)

“There is a lot of security here.”(White male, accountant, 30)“I feel quite safe. It’s much more safer. [sic]” (Coloured female,

retired, 87)

The power of the locale lies in the perception of violence and in puttingthe security factor first in all urban spatial practices (Dirsuweit and Wafer,2005; Lemanski, 2004). The urban form of the mall is thus particularlyinteresting: as we have seen it, malls are successful businesses due to thefact that they both are and appear to be safe places, as opposed to tradi-tional public spaces which are perceived as unsafe. An ironical twistgenerated by the local context is that it is precisely this safe and privatecharacter that allows the V&A to function as a public space. Because ofthe presence of private security, boosted inside by the private lease of theland, various people feel they can come and patronise the Waterfront. Theretired Coloured woman of 87 we interviewed would not feel safe in atraditional public space. Its relative decay would not offer her the atmos-phere and attractions she’s looking for. In other terms, were the V&A not aprivate space, she would not come. Public diversity, in terms of age,gender, race, class or geographical origin (e.g. tourists v. locals), whichforms the very basis of the ’publicness’ (Mitchell and Staeheli, 2006) ofthe Waterfront, is a direct consequence of its private status. Privatisationappears here as the necessary condition for urban space. This couldperhaps be perceived as a South African paradox, in that a globalisedurban form which is locally transformed and given specific meaningsgenerates different social outcomes and even opportunities for social cohe-sion: this could be an exception although still a case showing the power ofthe local for understanding the public/private dichotomy.

Making It Public

In the case of the Victoria & Alfred Waterfront, we are confrontedwith apparent contradictions. There is no doubt that the V&A Waterfrontis a mall, with all the characteristics that have been decried by academicdiscourses all around the world. But it is a tremendously successful.


Following Michel de Certeau’s caveat (1990: 255), warning us not to“prendre les gens pour des idiots” is pertinent here. People do come to theWaterfront for obvious reasons: a magnificent location, a cosmopolitanatmosphere, a wide range of activities and a relatively easy access.Moreover, the place attracts people across national origins, colour linesand class divides, giving a juridically private commercial space thefeeling of a public space and providing a precious place for racial andsocial mixing in a strongly segregated city. Value judgments on theWaterfront thus oscillate between reprobation – the usual stance towardsmalls – and marvel. We want to argue here that it is precisely this contra-diction that makes the case a theoretically interesting one, as it leads us toquestion and assess the twin notions of public and private spaces.

(Re)defining public space

While ‘public space’ is a vexed notion in that different disciplines giveit different and sometimes partially overlapping meanings, three interpre-tations prevail.

Firstly, public space has been understood politically as the metaphor-ical space of public debate. It thus reflects the vitality of the political lifeof a given society: a vibrant public space manifests the strength ofdemocracy, most notably through the input of civil society and participa-tory citizenship. This definition stems from Habermas (1962), and hasbeen especially strong in French sociology (e.g. Barril et al., 2003;Baudrillard et al., 1991; Collignon and Diouf, 2001). Cafés, the press andthe Internet are the material and virtual places where public space canmost often be found in the political and metaphorical sense, even if itsometimes takes to the streets and demonstrates. In apartheid SouthAfrica, the prevailing white hegemony aimed at excluding Africans frompolitical and metaphorical public space by denying them voting rigthsand other basic citizenship rights.

Secondly, public space has been characterised from a juridical point ofview. According to this idea, all public land, i.e. land owned by publicauthorities, is public space. Under this definition, streets, squares, parksand gardens are public spaces. Urban planners follow this opinion andcategorize land as private or public land according to ownership(Toussaint and Zimmerman, 2001). This definition has to be understoodwithin a more general context: Western jurists since the Romans haveconsistently opposed the public and the private realms (Sabatier, 2006).Sennett (1977) identified this dichotomy as a pillar of modern spatialorder. In South Africa, the State was the primary landowner in urbanareas, allowing it to dictate the shape of the city and facilitated its control.


Thirdly, public space has been identified socially, through its uses andthe diversity of the people who frequent it. It then refers to a concreteplace, where people from all walks of life are confronted to each other,where they may meet and even interact. Inspired by Simmel, Wirth andGoffman, French sociologist Isaac Joseph has been particularly active inpromoting this view (e.g. Joseph, 1984, 1998). He stressed that an openaccess was necessary for a space to be public in the social sense or, as heputs it, for its ‘publicness’ (see also Mitchell and Staeheli, 2006).Consequently, social public space should welcome “a plurality of uses orperspectives”15. Joseph especially underlines its multidimensional andtheatrical quality: in social public space, people are simultaneously onstage and in the public. Under the apartheid dispensation, everyone hadan access and a role on this stage according to their racial category.

Thus, the political, juridical and social definitions of public space dodiffer and describe various phenomena and/or spaces. Hence it becomesnecessary to specify the level for which a space is public: politically, as aspace of debate; juridically, as public land; or socially, as a space acces-sible to everyone. Moreover, a space can be public at one of these threelevels and private at another. For instance, gated streets are still juridicallypublic – they still belong to, say, the municipality – but their social use isprivate.

‘Publicisation’

By taking into consideration the three above-mentioned levels of‘publicness’ (i.e. the extent to which a place is ‘public’), one can start tounravel the complexity of public space and clearly see that since contem-porary cities evolve very rapidly, urban spaces are constantly subjected tovarious dynamics and changes. We want to argue that different econom-ical, political, social and spatial processes affect the ‘publicness’ of aspace. Therefore, it should not be viewed as given and fixed, but dynami-cally. Indeed, the notion of privatisation describes processes that make aspace less public and more private, and has received a lot of attention inurban studies during the last decade (see for instance Davis, 1998;Johnston and Shearing, 2003; Ghorra-Gobin, 2001; Sorkin, 1992).

However, major theorists have recently been critical about such a one-sided view. Edward Soja deplores the ‘tendency to see changes in publicspace simply as a kind of undemocratic transfer to the private domain’(Soja, 2000: 320). Moreover, recent literature points out that the emer-


15. « une pluralité d’usages ou de perspectives », our translation. Isaac Joseph, LaVille sans qualités (La Tour d’Aigues, Éditions de l’Aube, 1998), p. 34.

gence of public space as we know it has never been accidental or self-evident. On the contrary, it is the result of social and political processes,and it often had to be challenged and conquered. Throughout history,those excluded and “othered” – the working class, women, or people ofcolour – have made claims on space. This prompted Don Mitchell (2003:219) to argue that “public space is thus socially produced through its useas public space”, or Bruno Latour (2005) to insist on Making ThingsPublic.

Soja’s and Mitchell’s very Lefebvrian points suggest that public spaceshould be looked at differently, by focusing on processes and their diver-sity (Lefebvre, 1974). We want to apply this advice and propose thenotion of ‘publicisation’. If the process of privatisation has been definedas the process through which a space is made more private, we can alsodefine the process of publicisation as the process through which a spaceis made more public. As a result, the dynamics affecting the ‘publicness’of a space can be either privatisation (less ‘publicness’) or publicisation(more ‘publicness’).

The last theoretical step is to merge this dynamic approach with thethree definitions of public. This means that the three levels – political,juridical and social – can be affected by either privatisation or publicisa-tion (Sabatier, 2006). For instance, at the political level, publicisationoccurs when the franchise is extended and, in general, every time peoplegain more rights. In the juridical sense, a private space becomes publi-cised when the State obtains ownership of the land. Lastly, the process ofpublicisation takes place socially when a significant and previouslyexcluded segment of the population gains physical access to a specificspace. These examples, however, are straightforward, as they present acoherent situation towards more publicness. For some specific cases,there is a contradiction between the dynamics at, say, the juridical andsocial levels. The V&A Waterfront is an example of such complexity. Onthe one hand, it has undergone a certain juridical privatisation when thearea was transformed into a mall managed by a private company. On theother, our evidence shows a strong tendency towards social publicisationin that the recent evolution of the Waterfront shows a dramatic increase inpublic diversity. Upper-class shoppers, street children and maids in theirSunday best today constitute the ‘public’ without which the Waterfrontwould not exist. The fact that, since 1994, the public happens to be moremultiracial, more socially mixed, and that the company has to negotiatewith that feature, cannot be overlooked. In other words, the Waterfronthas become an increasingly public place over the years. Thus, throughtheir daily socio-spatial practices, individual actors have had a say inmodelling their city. They started an appropriation process, i.e. the abilityof urban residents to make a place their own and give it alternative


meanings and uses even if it was designed for other purposes (Lefebvre,1974).

What about the political? Practices v. representations

Nevertheless, what is happening at the political level still needs to beassessed for the V&A Waterfront. In the South African context, webelieve that the most politically sensitive question is still racial mixing.We have shown that the V&A is indeed a place where people fromdifferent racial backgrounds are present. Co-presence is real and signifi-cant, but to what extent? Two conflicting sets of arguments document anuanced and fluid reality.

Firstly, micro-geographic evidence points toward limited interactionbetween race groups. Indeed, formerly classified Whites, Coloureds andAfricans are to be seen at the Waterfront, but multi-racial groups are few.Frequentation patterns also vary: we have seen (cf. supra) that Whitesand Africans tend to visit the place at different times. In line with averagesocio-economic racial profiles, activities differ: for instance, eating anddrinking is the main activity at the Waterfront (see Figure 11.4 supra),but is practised differently. Generally more affluent Whites and anAfrican and Coloured bourgeoisie tend to patronise formal restaurantsand, sometimes, restaurants with an ethnic flavour. Coloured and Africanworking-class visitors prefer the cheaper food court takeaways, and eaton the nearby seashore. Whites are seldom seen in the food court.Segregation still exists at micro level. Practices at the Waterfront, whileoccurring in the same space, would then reflect ‘deracialisation’ morethan real desegregation and mixing, a phenomenon already identified bySaff (1998) as far as residential practices are concerned.

Yet, while practices are partly micro-segregated, discourses and repre-sentations on ‘place’ tend to highlight its ‘New South Africa’ atmosphere.When asked to voice their feelings about mixing at the Waterfront, inter-viewees of all races gave overwhelming positive answers:

“Yes, definitely. There is diverse people, not only one race. Everybodyis free. There is no racism, no sexism. Everybody accept others.” (Colouredfemale, bank employee, 22)

“Before the end of the apartheid, black people were not allowed to go.Anybody can’t come, only whites. Now you can go into any shop.”(Africanmale security guard, 27)

“It is a multiracial place. You can find every kind of South Africanpeople. » (Coloured male student, 19)


“All the rainbow nation, it is mixed.”(Coloured female, project coordi-nator, 26)

“Yes it is. Because everybody feel comfortable being here.” (Whitemale, professor, 41)

“Yes, because you can see all kind of people and not one that domi-nate; it is easy to come here.” (Coloured woman, student, 22)

“You can see different people, like in languages, in cultures, but theycan meet each other .yes it really reflects the new South Africa.” (Africanmale, security guard, 33)

The rhetoric of the rainbow nation (Salazar, 2002) is here internalisedand reused by V&A Waterfront patrons. The very fact that it can bemobilised to describe the location’s atmosphere says something about itsperception as a place of mixing. Even less positive voices acknowledge –even if reluctantly – the fact that the place is undergoing social publicisation:

“[Lowered voice] Do you see all the blacks here? If they won’t behere, it would be dead.” (White retired male, 84)

“It is slowly changing. It is not like before.”(African male, 48, unem-ployed)

Practices and discourses thus diverge and make it difficult to assesswhether the V&A Waterfront is a place of social mixing or only co-pres-ence. The political level remains elusive, which is not surprising: it canindeed be characterised by its fluidity and openness, as a place ofcontesting or, at least, of negotiation. Moreover, the emergence of ‘newsocial movements’ all over the world may be converging with a deepredefinition of post-apartheid South African civil society to shape newforms of political action, a field which will give much scope for futureresearch.

Conclusion

To conclude, we would like to insist on the social complexity that bothindividual practices and local contexts give, even to over-determinedurban forms such as a mall. Ideologically loaded objects such as security,public space, violence or malls should be analysed carefully, throughempirical evidence and without a priori value judgements. We have tried


to apply this caveat to the case of the Cape Town V&A Waterfront, andfound it to be a complex space, driven by both privatisation and publici-sation.

While not all malls in Cape Town are subject to the same dynamics,neither are all traditional public spaces; yet, they offer another windowfor analysing post-apartheid cities. Indeed, residential changes have beenthe dominant indicator for analysing post-apartheid cities and the impor-tance and dramatic effects of implementing the Group Areas Act partlyexplains this pattern (Houssay-Holzschuch, Nourrissat and Oldfield,2000; Mabin, 1995). In the post-apartheid context, these processes areslow and highlight only some aspects of urban transformation. City life isnot constructed only around residential patterns; the fabric of the city isalso built on ongoing social interaction and spatial practice in everydaylife. In particular, the dismantling of apartheid legislation opened up newopportunities for social interaction. In this process, new social placeswere created, making one’s understanding of social desegregation crucial.Social desegregation is fluid and fragmented because these processes aredriven at individual level. Imagining social interaction in the city requiresan exponential accounting of identities because these are not fixed norlimited for a given individual, group or place.


Date post:	04-Dec-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ujf-grenoble
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Blurring the Line: Privatisation and ‘Publicisation’ at the Victoria \u0026 AlfredWaterfront,...

Documents