37 UDK: 712:712.25(682.131) DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-2016-27-01-003 Prejeto: 17. 7. 2015 Sprejeto: 12. 3. 2016 Leani DE VRIES Nico KOTZE Revitalizacija parkov in odprtih prostorov v središču Johannesburga Kljub procesu »vračanja v mestno središče«, značilnem za določene otoke v središču Johannesburga, nekateri opazovalci preučevano območje še vedno dojemajo kot propadajoče in ga povezujejo s kriminalom. Čeprav so parki in odprti prostori v Johannesburgu zadnja desetletja propadali, se zdaj obnavljajo. V članku avtorja preučujeta velikost odprtih prostorov in parkov, dostopnih prebivalcem mestnega središča, in kako prijazni so ti uporabnikom. Poleg tega ocenjujeta njihovo trenutno stanje ter raven in učinkovitost razpoložljivih vzdrževalnih storitev. Avtorja preučujeta tudi strategije prenove, ki jih je uvedla mestna občina Johannesburg, na njihovi podlagi pa tudi posebna določila, ki jih je za parke in odprte prostore sprejel lokalni metropolitanski svet. Ugotovitve kažejo, da je sanacija parkov in odprtih prostorov ustrezno vključena v načrte mestne prenove, vendar določene omejitve ovirajo izvedbo tovrstnih izboljšav. Edinstvena dinamika mestnega središča pomeni velik izziv pri vzdrževanju parkov in odprtih prostorov, zato jo je treba ustrezno razumeti in načrtovati ustrezne ukrepe. Pojavlja se tudi potreba po pravičnejši in učinkovitejši dodelitvi virov in po oblikovanju učinkovitejših partnerstev. Končna ugotovitev raziskave je, da bodo potrebe skupnosti zadovoljene šele, ko bodo tovrstna upravljavska vprašanja postavljena v ospredje in se bodo začela ustrezno reševati. Ključne besede: Johannesburg, parki, sanacija, mestno središče, propadanje mesta Urbani izziv, letnik 21, št. 1, 2016 124 L. DE VRIES, N. KOTZE 1 Uvod Propadanja središča Johannesburga ne moremo ustrezno razumeti brez upoštevanja vpliva apartheida na naselja v Južnoafriški republiki. V poslovnih središčih mest v državi je ta vpliv dokaj jasen, saj so bili ti predeli med apartheidom namenjeni izključno belcem. Ker so imeli nebelci do teh območij omejen dostop, so bili omejeni na mestno obrobje (Bollens, 1998). Zaradi bega belskih podjetij in prebivalcev v Randburg, Sandton in Midrand nekoliko severneje od Johannesburga v 70. in 80. letih 20. stoletja je začelo središče Johannesburga propadati in se močno spreminjati. Stavbe so se opuščale, infrastruktura je začela propadati, prej prevladujoče belsko prebivalstvo pa je zamenjalo hitro rastoče temnopolto prebivalstvo, ki prej ni imelo dostopa do mestnega središča (Young, 2012). Mestno središče rastočemu prebivalstvu, ki je imelo vse večje zahteve, ni moglo zagotoviti ustreznih storitev in infrastrukture (Garner, 2011). Postalo je znano kot predel mesta, v katerem prevladujejo revni prebivalci (Winkler, 2009), zaradi česar je v procesu naglega propadanja doživelo več preobrazb. Po petih desetletjih propadanja se zdaj mestno središče s svojo mrežo parkov in odprtih prostorov spopada s številnimi težavami, kot je na primer hitro rastoče prebivalstvo (Murray, 2011, in Todes, 2012). Poleg tega je to končna destinacija za veliko število imigrantov, zlasti tistih iz Podsaharske Afrike (Landau in Gindrey, 2008, ter Rogerson in Rogerson, 2015). Rastočemu prebivalstvu je nujno treba zagotoviti ustrezne storitve, infrastrukturo, delovna mesta in s tem boljše možnosti za preživetje (Rudolph idr., 2012, ter Rogerson in Rogerson, 2015). Že skoraj dve desetletji si v Johannesburgu prizadevajo oživiti mesto in ga preobraziti v »afriško mesto svetovnega merila« (Rogerson, 1996 in 2004, ter Rogerson in Rogerson, 2015). Kljub tem prizadevanjem in dejstvu, da je Johannesburg v gospodarskem središču Južnoafriške republike, je mesto le redko vključeno v državne urbanistične raziskovalne programe (Visser in Roger, 2014, ter Rogerson in Rogerson, 2015), ki so izjemno pomembni za razumevanje in odpravljanje propadanja mest ter spodbujanje mestne prenove. Kot drugod po svetu tudi v Johannesburgu poteka proces »vračanja v mestno središče«, katerega glavni nosilci so mladi prebivalci predmestij, ki želijo imeti določeno vlogo v velikem mestu in biti del tega, kar ponuja (Piiparinen, 2013, in Walsh, 2013). V dveh najstarejših predelih v središču Johannesburga (City and Suburban in Jeppestown) je bila v okviru zasebnega projekta zgrajena soseska Maboneng, ki tem novim mestnim prebivalcem zagotavlja urbani življenjski prostor (Walsh, 2013). Še eden od delov mesta, ki doživljajo hitre spremembe, je Doornfontein, v katerem proces prenove temelji predvsem Slika 1: Mestno središče in neformalne trgovine (foto: Nico Kotze) na gradnji študentskih stanovanj (glej tudi Donaldson idr., 2014). Kot navaja Tanja Winkler (2013), središče Johannesburga kljub velikim vsotam denarja, ki so že bile vložene v njegovo sanacijo, razen omenjenih izoliranih otokov prenove še vedno propada (glej sliko 1). Za številne opazovalce in rumeni tisk zlasti soseska Hillbrow ostaja vzorčni primer propadajočega mestnega območja, na katerem vlada kriminal (Schnehage, 2012). Ivor Chipkin je že leta 2005 opozoril, da bi bilo treba središče Johannesburga sanirati, in sicer v sodelovanju z zasebnim sektorjem, ki v procesu prenove velja za boljšega partnerja. Parki in odprti prostori okoliški skupnosti zagotavljajo raznovrstne funkcije in koristi, zato jih je treba upoštevati pri poskusih prenove propadajočih mest (Thwaites idr., 2005; Page in Connell, 2010; Özgüner, 2011; Bratina Jurkovic, 2014; Cerar, 2014, ter Pompe in Temeljotov Salaj, 2014). Potrebe in zahteve družbeno in kulturno raznolikih skupin bi bilo treba upoštevati v urbanističnih programih za parke in odprte prostore, ki bi tako ustrezno izpolnjevali svoj namen v modernem urbanem okolju (Bollens, 1998; Chiesura, 2004, in Goličnik, 2008). Dostop do parkov in odprtih prostorov je osnovna človekova pravica, in ob upoštevanju trenutnih poskusov spodbujanja prenove v Johannesburgu bi bilo treba tem »zelenim pljučem« nameniti zadostno pozornost, saj lahko prispevajo k prenovi in oživitvi mesta. Avtorja v raziskavi preučujeta enega od vidikov poskusov prenove, ki potekajo v mestu, in sicer sanacijo parkov v središču Johannesburga. Raziskava je razdeljena na pet delov. V prvem delu sta pojasnjena propadanje mestnega središča in potreba po urbani prenovi, v drugem so predstavljeni območje raziskave in raziskovalni cilji, v tretjem so analizirani funkcije ter koristi parkov in odprtih prostorov na mestnih območjih in v četrtem so predstavljene izboljšave v desetih parkih v središču Johannesburga, vključenih v raziskavo. V zadnjem poglavju so podana priporočila in predstavljene sklepne ugotovitve. Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016 Revitalizacija parkov in odprtih prostorov v središču Johannesburga 39 2 Raziskovalno območje in raziskovalni cilji Po podatkih Martina Murrayja (navedeno v Rogerson in Rogerson, 2015) ima velemesto Johannesburg približno 3,9 milijona prebivalcev, zaradi česar je eno največjih afriških mestnih območij. Razdeljeno je v sedem okrožij ali regij (od A do G). Raziskava se osredotoča na okrožje F, ki vključuje mestno središče in soseske v predmestju Johannesburg South (glej sliko 2). Območje raziskave pokriva mrežo desetih parkov, ki so naključno porazdeljeni po mestnem središču in jih obkrožajo številne ceste. Obsega soseske Berea, Hillbrow in Joubert Park, meji pa na soseski Braamfontein in Doornfon-tein. Zamejujejo ga te ulice: Albertina Sisulu Street na jugu, Louis Botha Avenue na severu, Harrison Street in Clarendon Place na zahodu ter Joe Slovo Drive na vzhodu. Parki tako spadajo v različna območja mestnega središča, od trgovskih do stanovanjskih. V raziskavo je vključenih teh deset parkov: park ob ulici Nugget Street, parka na severnem in južnem delu ulice End Street, Joubertov park, park Attwell Gardens, park Ernesta Oppenheimerja, park Aleca Gorschela, Tudhopov park, park J. Z. de Villiersa in Mitchellov park (glej sliko 3). Cilji raziskave so bili: • določiti velikost odprtih prostorov in parkov, ki so na voljo prebivalcem mestnega središča; • analizirati trenutno stanje in vzdrževanost parkov, vključenih v raziskavo; • preučiti strategije prenove, ki jih je uvedla mestna občina Johannesburg, ter posebne določbe v teh strategijah, ki se nanašajo na parke in odprte prostore. Za uresničitev zastavljenih ciljev sta avtorja v raziskavi uporabila več različnih metod, s pomočjo katerih sta preučila težave, s katerimi se spopadajo parki v središču Johannesburga. Določila sta lokacijo parkov in odprtih prostorov ter z upravnico okrožja F opravila polstrukturirani intervju, da bi dobila informacije o stanju in vzdrževanosti obravnavanih desetih parkov. Med junijem 2014 in julijem 2015 sta opravila tudi več terenskih ogledov parkov, da bi preverila, ali se zares vzdržujejo (kot je to zagotovila lokalna uprava). 3 Parki in odprti prostori: vloge in koristi Mesta oziroma mestna območja so okolja z najrazličnejšimi vlogami, vključno s trgovskimi, upravnimi, stanovanjskimi in prostočasnimi oziroma rekreativnimi (Page in Connell, 2010). Odprti mestni prostori so pomembni, ker opravljajo različne vloge v mestu, prinašajo pa tudi najrazličnejše neposredne in ill M isÖSWcM JOUBERT PARK —o 3 Slika 2: Parki v središču Johannesburga (ilustracija: Leani de Vries) upravna okrožja v Johannesburgu upravno okrožje F 0 5 km \ 7-—^ / ^ krematorij v L- - .¿JI .,, Braamfonteinu "v-'7 J 'I • KO n 123 \ \ 1 l, 61 Jj ktV ? JuM f i uličn; r Rhodesov t park '1 V \ 124 t V--' i ulična drevesa ^ , . , . ,W..v Springfieldu °bjelS f V Springfield Pioneer Park f-M I i »1 55 i'1*/'., > M^-Jf Ç s A ■ Kibler Park. 'I' I ri.. L—V v Johannesburg boundary Administrative region boundaries Ward boundaries Depots Figure 3: Administrative regions of Johannesburg (illustration: Leani de Vries). Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016 124 L. DE VRIES, N. KOTZE approach to explore the problems of inner-city parks in Johannesburg. The locations and areas of the parks and open spaces were determined. A semi-structured interview was conducted with the manager of Region F to gather information on the condition of the ten parks and their levels of maintenance, and, finally, site visits were carried out over a year (from June 2014 to July 2015) to ascertain whether the parks were being maintained as claimed by the local government. 3 Parks and open spaces: Functions and benefits Cities or urban areas are environments with a multiplicity and variety of land-use functions, including commercial, administrative, residential and leisure uses (Page & Connell, 2010). Urban open spaces are significant in urban areas because they perform several functions within the urban area and provide a wide variety of direct and indirect benefits. They are valuable because they provide for the social, psychological, environmental and health needs of the surrounding community (Chiesura, 2003). Studies have shown that both the psychological and physical health attributes of regular park users are generally greater than those for people that do not regularly visit parks and open spaces (Chiesura, 2003). Such spaces serve the community by offering an opportunity to reduce stress levels and enhance fitness levels. Children also benefit greatly from access to open spaces because they allow for play. This has been shown to be extremely beneficial to children's physiological and cognitive development (Page & Connell, 2010). Planning is important for parks in areas of social and cultural diversity and in open spaces in general. Halil Ozguner (2011) emphasises the importance of planning when he states that it is vital for urban parks and open spaces to be designed and managed effectively to successfully provide for the needs associated with the social and cultural diversity of the community in the vicinity of parks. In their studies, Michèle Jolé (2008) and William Solecki and Joan Welch (1995) also acknowledge the role that green open spaces play in serving the diverse communities that surround parks and open spaces and utilise these facilities. According to Emily Thompson (2002), open spaces in cities must be "beautiful places" that promote social cohesion and equity. Thus, the quality of urban areas is dependent on the provision of planning and management strategies for such open spaces (Council for the Environment, 1989). However, despite this, urban open spaces receive much less political attention than necessary (Chiesura, 2003). The way that open spaces are spatially arranged might also shape the relationship between the population and the surrounding open space, and the shared benefits that these areas offer (Thwaites et al., 2005). Patrick Mwendwa and Richard Giliba (2012) recommend a uniform distribution, in which the size of the open space can adequately accommodate the surrounding population. Furthermore, distance between the place of residence and the closest open space will also determine the functionality of that space in the urban area. More regular park users are more likely to live close to these amenities (Mwendwa & Giliba, 2012). Other studies have suggested that there is a need for a network of several small connected open spaces that resembles a mosaic pattern rather than a large dedicated open space in an urban area. This suggestion makes sense in today's society because of the low availability of land to dedicate as green open space in most developed cities (Thwaites et al., 2005). Furthermore, a sustainable city is viewed as being compact, with a wide range of functions and multiplicity of uses, and as being able to accommodate a network of small open spaces. In the case of Central Park, it is suggested that the community would have benefited more from a network of many smaller parks than from this large one (Thwaites et al., 2005). Emily Talen (2010) believes that the spatial distribution of parks and other public amenities is a significant determinant of welfare and social justice. With regard to welfare, she points out that residents of lower-income neighbourhoods are more likely to walk greater distances to gain access to open spaces. However, the utilisation and ability to realise the potential of these public amenities by the local communities living in the vicinity of the park is limited due to negative perceptions, such as high crime rates in such areas (Talen, 2010). Urban regeneration poses a solution to the problem of urban decay and can be realised through the implementation of effective planning methods. It is a process that generally follows periods of urban decay and decline in cities, and can be defined as "the redevelopment or rehabilitation of older parts of towns and cities, including their business areas" (Gibson & Langstaff, 1982: 12). Along with physical regeneration, it is also important that the attitude of the community also changes in a positive way (Thwaites et al., 2005). Another important aspect of urban regeneration, and central to the theme of this article, is to acknowledge the importance of green open spaces because they make cities more attractive and add to the aesthetic, historical and recreational value of the surrounding areas (Chiesura, 2003; Giliberti, 2013). Thus, Mwendwa and Giliba (2012) argue that policymakers should not ignore the role that open spaces play in urban areas. Furthermore, planning measures for open spaces should be included in the overall planning programmes of cities to provide for the population's needs (Enger, 2005; Zhang et al., 2012). By attracting more people and investment, open spaces have regenerative effects and enhance the economic value of urban areas. There is also a lesson to be learned from urban regeneration in Birmingham. Because the regeneration of Birmingham was in Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016 The revitalisation of parks and open spaces in downtown Johannesburg 125 fact based on the development of a new city park, the Department for Transport, Local Government and Regions (2002) in the United Kingdom uses this example to illustrate how increasingly more cities are realising the potential of their parks and open spaces. Open spaces are said to have a "restorative potential" as components in the urban regeneration process that can satisfy a new urban lifestyle and sustain a liveable city (Thwaites et al., 2005). According to Anna Chiesu-ra (2003), the idea of a more liveable city is increasingly being attached to the concept of green open space, the importance of providing adequate areas of open space and enabling the population to gain access to them. 4 Development and redevelopment of parks in Johannesburg The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research or CSIR (2012) has published guidelines for the provision of social amenities and facilities in South Africa. These guidelines apply to different types of settlements that range from metropolitan areas and large cities to remote rural villages. The open space provision (including parks, sports facilities and cemeteries) in South African metropolitan areas is indicated as less than 0.5 hectare per 1,000 residents (CSIR, 2012). This is considerably lower than the international standard. According to the City of Johannesburg (2014), open spaces in the inner city are severely lacking in terms of the international standard of two hectares per 1,000 residents. The Johannesburg Development Agency (JDA) was established in 2001, with its main priority being the regeneration of the inner city. It tends to invest in both high- and low-profile projects (Bethlehem, 2013), some of which are aimed at improving the public environment, including the inner-city parks. According to Monyane Mapetla (2006), the JDA is currently involved in managing the planning and development of the inner-city region projects and is thus a relevant stakeholder worthy of consideration. Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo was also established as a stakeholder in the City of Johannesburg in 2000, and is responsible for over two thousand parks in the municipality of Johannesburg. In accordance with the vision of the City of Johannesburg, Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo aims to transform the city into a "green, clean, conserved and active world-class African city" (Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo, 2014). Johannesburg is divided into seven regions; the inner city (the study area) is located in Region F, with nineteen wards and six parks (see Figure 3). The parks ofJohannesburg are categorised as either flagship, developed or underdeveloped parks, and park maintenance is scheduled according to these categories. Figure 4: The 2015 redevelopment of Alec Gorschel Park (photo: Nico Kotze). However, Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo does not keep to these recommended timetables and tends to clean up parks only when there is a demand for such services. According to Ipeleng Dube (2014), senior manager for Region F at Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo, the parks in region F are classified on the basis of their characteristics, which determines their maintenance requirements and schedules. Flagship parks are regarded as "top" parks that require weekly maintenance. These are usually the larger parks in Johannesburg. Developed parks are usually community parks that require maintenance in a twenty-one-day maintenance cycle, and underdeveloped parks are maintained only once in a sixty-day cycle. The undeveloped parks are large open spaces mainly in older suburban or previously disadvantaged areas, as in Johannesburg South, which forms part of Region F. The challenges of maintaining the inner-city parks are unique compared to the rest of the city's parks because the inner-city parks face several constraints. First, the situation in the inner city is such that both maintenance and security are required virtually on a daily basis. This causes complications in setting up schedules and keeping to them. Second, limited budgets and time constraints hinder proper maintenance. An additional factor is the lack of manpower and inadequate workforce skills. Dube estimates that, of her 140 staff members, only sixty-six are involved in maintenance-related work. This number is insufficient, considering that Region F includes the inner city as well as Johannesburg South and is home to around 230 parks, amounting to a total area of 6,288 hectares. The ten parks in the inner city range in area from 2,800 m2 (Tud-hope Park in Berea) to 38,500 m2 (Joubert Park in the CBD; see Table 1). Among these parks, only Joubert Park is classified as a flagship park with a seven-day maintenance schedule. The other nine parks are all classified as developed parks with Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016 124 L. DE VRIES, N. KOTZE Table 1: Parks of inner-city Johannesburg. Park Location Size (m2) Maintenance cycle (days) Redevelopment cost (ZAR) Joubert CBD 38,500 7 1.5 million Alec Gorschel Berea 16,700 21 n.a. J. Z. de Villiers Berea 16,000 21 3.6 million Mitchell Berea 11,320 21 0.65 million Nugget Street Doornfontein 8,000 21 None Attwell Gardens CBD 8,000 21 4.5 million End Street South Doornfontein 7,700 21 End Street North Doornfontein 5,500 21 Ernest Oppenheimer CBD 3,300 21 n.a. Tudhope Berea 2,800 21 19,000 Note: * For both parks. twenty-one-day maintenance schedules, thus being cleaned only once every three weeks. Of the ten parks in the study area, eight are fenced with gates locked at night to prevent vandalism. This defeats the function and purpose of these recreational areas because it denies residents free access to them. An official from Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo also admitted at an open meeting held in 2014 that the highest costs incurred in maintaining the parks in the city is repairing vandalised fences due to theft of their metal components, which are then sold as scrap metal. The two largest parks in Johannesburg's inner city are Jou-bert Park and Alec Gorschel Park. Joubert Park is the oldest and largest park. It is located in the CBD of Johannesburg and dates back to 1906. From 2012 to 2014, ZAR 1.5 million (USD 1 = ZAR 15.4 as of February 2016) was allocated for improvements to the park. The park is fenced and has several gates that are locked at night. Being classified as a flagship park, it is cleaned once a week (see Table 1). The second-largest park is Alec Gorschel Park in the residential suburb of Berea. It is surrounded by a large number of apartment blocks, with a primary school and several secondary schools nearby. This park was improved during the 2001-2002 and 2007-2008 financial years. The first improvement was spearheaded by Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo, and the second by the JDA, which redeveloped the playground at a cost of under ZAR 20,000. Although the park is fenced off, it was noticed during site visits in 2014 that the perimeter fencing was breached at several points. As a developed park, Alec Gorschel Park is cleaned up only once every three weeks. The park was improved for the third time in 2015. To an observer, it would seem that large sums of money are being spent on improvements to these parks, but a lack of regular maintenance is causing the parks to lapse back into a state of disrepair. As can be seen in Figure 4, almost all of the vegetation has been removed from the park and it is being replaced by a hard, user-unfriendly paved area. The two smallest parks in the inner city are Tudhope and Ernest Oppenheimer Parks. Tudhope Park is located in the residential area of Berea and was redeveloped more than a decade ago in the 2001-2002 financial year at a cost of ZAR 19,000. The park has poor facilities and consists of an open lawn and large trees, with paved walkways and a few benches and children's play facilities. This park is also categorised into the twenty-one-day maintenance schedule, which means that it scored poorly regarding litter. Ernest Oppenheimer Park, located in the CBD, was reopened in April 2011 after being redeveloped by the JDA. This park is fenced off with two entrances on opposite sides of the park. Ernest Oppenheimer Park is unique because it displays original sculptures and has been specifically identified as an integral part ofJohannesburg's urban regeneration plans (see Figure 5). Some signs of decay are visible, with public toilets out of order and litter present during site visits. Mitchell Park and Nugget Street Park, located in Berea and Doornfontein, are two medium-sized parks with the most and least facilities in the study area. Mitchell Park was improved during the 2001-2002 and 2012-2013 financial years at a cost of ZAR 650,000. Notwithstanding the money spent on improving the park, it is neglected and unkempt, with areas where the lawn has died and piles of litter. Nugget Street Park could be more readily described as an open space rather than as a park because there is no indication of any improvement. Both these parks are classified as developed parks. The End Street North and End Street South Parks are located in Doornfontein. Both of these parks were redeveloped in 2009 by the JDA for the 2010 FIFA World Cup at a cost of ZAR 10 million. The two parks mainly consist of paved areas with a limited area covered by lawn and only a few large trees. Each park includes a playground and is fenced with gates. Although these two parks also fall into the twenty-one-day maintenance cycle, site visits showed the level of maintenance Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016 The revitalisation of parks and open spaces in downtown Johannesburg 125 Figure 5: Ernest Oppenheimer Park in the centre of the CBD (photo: Nico Kotze). Figure 7: Informal sales activities at Attwell Gardens Park (photo: Nico Kotze). to be relatively good. However, these parks are user-unfriendly because they predominately have hard paved areas (see Figure 6). Attwell Gardens Park, located in the CBD of Johannesburg, is close to Park Station, the city's main railway station. The park was reopened in August 2011 after having been redeveloped by the JDA at a cost of ZAR 4.5 million. The park is mostly paved and fenced off, with a gate that is locked at night. It is surrounded by informal vendors (see Figure 7), a fruit and vegetable market, and a taxi rank. All of these activities tend to generate large volumes of waste. Because of the twenty-one-day maintenance cycle here, litter appears to be a serious problem, apparent during a number of site visits to the park (see Figure 8). J. Z. de Villiers Park, one of the larger parks in the innercity residential area of Berea, was initially improved during the 2001-2002 financial year by Johannesburg City Parks and Figure 6: Playground at End Street South Park (photo: Nico Kotze). l: Figure 8: The litter problem at Attwell Gardens Park (photo: Nico Kotze). Zoo at a cost of ZAR 3.4 million. The second improvement by the JDA was during the 2007-2008 financial year at a cost of ZAR 20,000 for redeveloping the playground, the soccer field and the basketball court. Although the park is fenced, the boundary has been breached at several points and litter appears to be a serious problem. 5 Conclusion Because they perform a variety of functions, the role that parks play in the everyday lives of urban residents should be regarded as both significant and positive. This highlights the importance of this study, which investigates the redevelopment of the inner-city parks of Johannesburg and ascertains whether they play any role in efforts to improve the decaying CBD of one of the largest cities in Africa. The process of urban renewal in Johannesburg has been in progress for more than twenty years now. Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016 124 L. DE VRIES, N. KOTZE According to Winkler (2013: 310), however, "much of the literature on urban regeneration identifies 20 years as a sufficient 'intensive period' of public spending on regeneration for demonstrable and context-wide outcomes. Observers might then be inclined to ask: If so much time, money and energy has already been spent on regenerating the inner city of Johannesburg, why have outcomes resulted in isolated and fragmented pockets of 'beautification' that are scarcely noticeable amongst a mass of dereliction?" This study found that Johannesburg has recognised the important role that parks and open-space amenities play in improving a city and in bringing benefits to the surrounding communities. For this reason, adequate provision has been made for parks and open spaces to be incorporated as vital components in inner-city regeneration plans. As such, parks and open spaces feature prominently in some of the more important regeneration strategies for the city, as in the case of the Inner City Regeneration Charter of 2007 and the Johannesburg Integrated Development Plan (2012-2016). As part of the regeneration of Johannesburg, several parks in the inner city have been redeveloped and improved. This study identified the most important stakeholders responsible for the redevelopment and upkeep of parks and open spaces as the City of Johannesburg, Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo, and the JDA. However, it is important to take the perceived problematical relationships that exist between these organisations into account. Greater communication is necessary in order to clear up ambiguities in terms of the responsibilities held by the various stakeholders. A further challenge that this study revealed is the shortage of resources required for redevelopments and, most importantly, for the successful upkeep of the amenities. Furthermore, the seven-day and twenty-one-day maintenances schedules of the inner-city parks are inadequate for an area with such a high population density. If these parks are not cleaned up more regularly, they will always look unkempt and remain unattractive and unfriendly to the public. Another problem relating to the inner-city parks is vandalism, which can only be addressed once the attitude of the residents towards these open spaces has changed. All of these constraints have contributed to the poor state of the parks and their amenities. The management ofJohannesburg's inner-city parks thus faces several challenges. The regional manager herself described the current state of the inner-city parks as unsatisfactory because the dynamics of the inner city pose unique challenges that have not been met. To improve conditions in the inner city, it is recommended that all of the relevant constraints be adequately addressed. Proper management should be implemented, sufficient resources should be allocated for maintaining the parks and partnerships should be put in place to remedy the situation. Management strategies should therefore be properly revised and adapted. Finally, even if money is spent on redeveloping the inner-city parks, as long as Johannesburg does not maintain these parks adequately they will never show any signs of improvement, nor will they change the negative perceptions of the popular press, residents and other observers of Johannesburg's inner city. Leani de Vries University of Johannesburg, Department of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies, South Africa E-mail: leanidevries@gmail.com Nico Kotze University of Johannesburg, Department of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies, South Africa E-mail: nicok@uj.ac.za References Bethlehem, G. (2013) A new dynamic - urban regeneration in the Joburg CBD. The Journal of the Helen Suzman Foundation, 69(June), pp. 17-24. Bollens, S. A. (1998) Urban planning amidst ethnic conflict: Jerusalem and Johannesburg. Urban Studies, 35(4), pp. 729-750. DOI: 10.1080/0042098984727 Bratina Jurkovic, N. (2014) Perception, experience and the use of public spaces by residents of urban neighbourhoods. Urbani izziv, 25(1), pp. 107-125. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-01-003 Cerar, A. (2014) From reaction to initiative: Potentials of contributive participation. Urbani izziv, 25(1), pp. 93-106. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-01-002 Chiesura, A. (2003) The role of urban parks for sustainable cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(1), pp. 129-138. DOI: 10.1016/j.landurb-plan.2003.08.003 Chipkin, I. (2005) The political stakes of academic research: Perspectives on Johannesburg. African Studies Review, 48(2), pp. 87-109. DOI: 10.1353/arw.2005.0054 City of Johannesburg (2014) Charter: Public spaces. Available at: http:// www.jonurg.za (accessed 20 Apr. 2014). Council for the Environment (1989) Guidelines for the planning and management of natural open spaces in urban area. Pretoria, Council for the Environment. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (2012) CSIR Guidelines for the provision of social facilities in South African settlements. Available at: http://www.csir. co.za (accessed 2 Jul. 2014). Department for Transport, Local Government and Regions (2002) Green spaces, better places. London. Donaldson, R., Benn, J., Campbell, M. & De Jager, A. (2014) Reshaping urban space through studentification in two South African urban centres. Urbani izziv, 25(supplement), pp. S176- S188. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-supplement-013 Urbani izziv, letnik 27, št. 1, 2016 The revitalisation of parks and open spaces in downtown Johannesburg 125 Dube, I. (2014) Regional manager, Johannesburg Parks, City of Johannesburg (interview, 2 Jul. 2014). Enger, S. C. (2005) Planning for parks, recreation and open spaces in your community. Available at: http://www.commerce.wa.gov (accessed 12 Apr. 2014). Garner, G. (2011) Johannesburg: Ten ahead. Craighall Park, Double G Media. Gibson, M. S. & Langstaff, M. J. (1982) An introduction to urban renewal. London, Hutchinson & Co. Giliberti, M. (2013) Rethinking the memorial in a Black Belt landscape: Planning, memory and identity of African-Americans in Alabama. Urbani izziv 24(1), pp. 144-159. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2013-24-01-004 Golicnik, B. (2008) Parks and their users. Urbani izziv, 19(2), pp. 133-139. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2008-19-02-002 Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo (2014) Maintaining Joburg's green crown. Available at: http://www.jhbcityparks.com (accessed 21 Jul. 2014). Jole, M. (2008) The public of parks: In between observation and action, the example of Paris. Urbani izziv, 19(2), pp. 169-173. DOI: 10.5379/ urbani-izziv-en-2008-19-02-007 Landau, L. & Gindrey, V. (2008) Gauteng 2055 trend paper: Population and migration. Johannesburg, University of the Witwatersrand. Mapetla, M. (2006) The inner-city regeneration programme and its impact on the small businesses and informal traders: The case of Johannesburg. Master's thesis. Johannesburg, University of the Witwatersrand. Murray, M. J. (2011) City of extremes: The spatial politics of Johannesburg. Johannesburg, Wits University Press. DOI: 10.1215/9780822391814 Mwendwa, P. & Giliba, R. A. (2012) Benefits and challenges of urban green space. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 10(1), pp. 73-79. DOI: 10.1080/10042857.2012.10685062 Ozguner, H. (2011) Cultural differences in attitudes towards urban parks and green spaces. Landscape Research, 36(5), pp. 599-620. DOI: 1 0.1080/01426397.2011.560474 Page, S. J. & Connell, J. (2010) Leisure: An introduction. Essex, Pearson Education. Piiparinen, R. (2013) Gentrification as an end game, and the rise of "sub-urbanity". New Geography Blog, 31 January. Available at: http:// www.newgeography.com (accessed 5 Aug. 2015). Pompe, A. & Temeljotov Salaj, A. (2014) Qualitative criteria of urban-ism and brands: A comparative analysis. Urbani izziv, 25(1), pp. 74-92. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2014-25-01-001 Rogerson, C. M. (1996) Image enhancement and local economic development in Johannesburg. Urban Forum, 7(2), pp. 139-156. DOI: 10.1007/BF03036759 Rogerson, C. M. (2004) Towards the world-class African city: Planning local economic development in Johannesburg, South Africa. Africa Insight, 34(4), pp. 12-21. Rogerson, C. M. & Rogerson, J. M. (2015) Johannesburg 2030: The economic contours of a "linking global city". American Behavioral Scientist, 59(3), pp. 347-368. DOI: 10.1177/0002764214550303 Rudolph, M., Kroll, F., Ruysenaar, S. & Dlamini, T. (2012) The state of food insecurity in Johannesburg. Kingston and Cape Town, Queen's University and African Food Security Urban Network. Schnehage, M. (2012) Millions ploughed into reclaiming Jo'burg's inner city. Business Day. Available at: http://www.moneyweb.co.za (accessed 20 May 2015). Solecki, W. D. & Welch, J. M. (1995) Urban parks: Green space or green walls? Landscape and Urban Planning, 32(2), pp. 93-116. DOI: 10.1016/0169-2046(94)00193-7 Talen, E. (2010) The special logic of parks. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), pp. 473-491. DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2010.502335 Thompson, C. W. (2002) Urban open space in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning, 60(2), pp. 59-72. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00059-2 Thwaites, K., Helleur, E. & Simkins, I. M. (2005) Restorative urban open space: Exploring the special configuration of human emotional fulfilment in urban open space. Landscape Research, 30(4), pp. 525-547. DOI: 10.1080/01426390500273346 Todes, A. (2012) New directions in spatial planning? Linking strategic spatial planning and infrastructure development. Journal of Planning, Education and Research, 32, pp. 400-414. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X12455665 Visser, G. & Rogerson, C. M. (2014) Reflections on 25 years of Urban Forum. Urban Forum, 25(1), pp. 1-11. DOI: 10.1007/s12132-014-9227-3 Walsh, S. (2013) "We won't move": The suburbs take back the centre in urban Johannesburg. City, 17(3), pp. 400-408. DOI: 10.1080/13604813. 2013.795330 Winkler, T. (2009) Prolonging the Global Age of Gentrification: Johannesburg's regeneration policies. Planning Theory, 8(4), pp. 362-381. DOI: 10.1177/1473095209102231 Winkler, T. (2013) Why won't downtown Johannesburg "regenerate"? Reassessing Hillbrow as a case example. Urban Forum, 24, pp. 309-324. DOI: 10.1007/s12132-012-9178-5 Young, G. A. (2012) Leading with landscape: A regenerative strategy for Johannesburg's inner city. Available at: http://sfc2012.org (accessed 15 Apr. 2014). Zhang, J., Kotze, N. & Minghui, Y. (2012) Living in a changing Chinese urban landscape: The Dalian case study. Urbani izziv, 23(2), pp. 93-102. DOI: 10.5379/urbani-izziv-en-2012-23-02-002 Urbani izziv, volume 27, no. 1, 2016