Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
06 September 2021 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Mpendulo Myeni
Lucien le Grange, architect and urbanist, delivered the 32nd Sophia Gray Lecture this year. The online event was hosted in the Oliewenhuis Art Museum, where an exhibition of his work was also on display.

The Department of Architecture at the University of the Free State (UFS) presented the 32nd Sophia Gray Memorial lecture at the Oliewenhuis Art Museum on 26 August 2021.

The speaker at this year’s event – presented online – was Lucien le Grange of Lucien le Grange Architects and Urban Planners. Some of his work includes the Nelson Mandela Gateway to Robben Island, the Prestwich Street Memorial, and the architecture and urbanism of District Six. 

Le Grange was part of the staff of the Cape Town School of Architecture from 1978 to 2011, where he taught Design and History and Theory of Architecture at undergraduate and postgraduate level. Most of his work was also conducted in the Western Cape.

Purposeful thinking and purposeful action

He believes a time such as this, marked by so many environmental and public health challenges, demands of us purposeful thinking and purposeful action. “The recent social disruption in our country specifically requires honest reflection of the kind of social system we seek to create for ourselves as a nation.”

“We are at a crossroads that gives us an opportunity to seriously and honestly confront our shortcomings as a society. We need to find ways to restore confidence in ourselves and to fashion a new national urban development strategy,” he continues.

Le Grange is of the opinion that the social unrest in July is important for architects and urban designers to reflect upon. He elaborates: “In different ways, the sight of unrest stretching from Phoenix to Soweto shows that the apartheid city format remains very much intact. There has in fact been very little reconstruction and development. Our cities remain unsustainable, inequitable, and inefficient. These spaces are still conglomerations where there is no choice, no sense of place, no sense of safety, and no sense of security.”

For him as an architect and urbanist, the images of freeway landscapes summarise much of the shortcomings of our South African cities. He feels that it demonstrates a dependency on the private motor vehicle at the expense of safe and secure public transport. “It illustrates an environment full of physical barriers, which segregates communities in the isolated, monofunctional informal settlements that populate our urban landscapes,” he says. 

Le Grange is convinced that this condition – all over our nation’s towns and cities – is an inditement against our dysfunctional state. “It is astounding that 27 years since the birth of our democracy, the apartheid city planning model still prevails,” he says. 

Projects contributing to the social fabric

Much of the work he displayed during the lecture was done in the first decade after 1994. He says in the early years of our new democracy, the aspirations and ambitions of the RDP somehow influenced how our social services programmes were conceived and how they were delivered. The projects were executed in a manner that allowed greater social interpretation in terms of its design and execution. Facilities were expected to serve a broader social role, and its construction very often incorporated training and employment opportunities. 

“It was an exciting time, although short-lived.”

He grouped his work into three overlapping areas of concern – architecture and the city, architecture and history, and architecture and community – which have informed the understanding of various contextual challenges and inspired his design ideas. 

“These areas have assisted us to develop strategies that assist city building, urban design, engagement with user communities, the making of buildings, and the treatment and use of building materials,” he says. 

Talking about architecture and the city, he discussed the urban design for the old Klipfontein Road Corridor. The project consists of an activity corridor along 35 km of landscape and is envisioned as a space that will allow for various development opportunities. The project also aims to break down the barriers that divide much of the urban landscape in Cape Town and to populate it with nodes, coinciding with activity areas such as a stadium, schools, or shopping malls.

Le Grange’s portfolio also includes projects that investigate a revitalisation of destroyed and forgotten sites or landscapes in District Six.

As an urbanist, he investigates how cityscapes should perform to retain integrity and a kind of density that allows mixed-use development. He points out some of the opportunities that come with dense urban living, offered by structures such as major routes, punctuated with urban landmarks and streets. Multi-purpose in their function, he believes streets are social spaces where children can play and where communities can gather during a carnival or a protest. “It is also a place of finer intimacies, from which to be seen and into which one can look onto,” he adds. 

“One must also remember the existence of natural features; in this case the presence of Table Mountain that is like a mantle wrapped around Cape Town,” says Le Grange.

The declaration of the Group Areas Act in 1966 meant the end of this vibrant and highly liveable quarter in the city, and was followed by a period of destruction, implemented between the mid-1970s through to the 1990s.

Le Grange says there was, however, not a full removal. Places of worship and the schools were still occupied. When requested to develop a first-phase housing development for people to return to this area, it was around these particular social spaces that he worked. 

The first nine houses built for this project were privately funded by the developers and were constructed without any approval from the authorities. The occupants of these houses were the first claimants to be moved back to District Six after being forcibly removed by the apartheid regime. 

The Klipfontein and District Six projects are but two on the list of projects in which Le Grange – who believes all of humanity has a right to a life of dignity – was involved to better the lives of communities around him. 

Other projects he touched on during his lecture include the Genadendal Heritage, Conservation, and Restoration project, the Ocean View Community Hall, and the Hanover Park Market. 

View the complete lecture and access the virtual exhibition here. A live exhibition is also on display in the Oliewenhuis Art Museum. 

News Archive

Questions about racial integration in residences answered
2007-07-31

Answers to frequently asked questions about the racial integration of student residences at the UFS

1. Why does the UFS want to change the current situation in the student residences?

There are many reasons why a new approach to placement in the student residences is necessary. However, the main reason is of an educational nature. As a university, the UFS should create an environment in its residences where students can learn to appreciate and respect the rich diversity that is on offer at the university. A university accommodates students from many different backgrounds in terms of race, language, religion, economic status, culture and other aspects. If a student can learn to appreciate the value in this rich diversity at university, he or she will also be able to appreciate the value of this diversity in the workplace and broader society.

The current situation of predominantly white and predominantly black residences has not been able to cultivate such an appreciation for diversity and respect for one another as human beings, and will not equip students with the knowledge and skills required to manage diversity.

Besides this, there are many other areas of life in the residences that need attention. For one, we need to urgently establish a human rights culture in the residences so that the rights of all students can be respected. We need to address the abuse of alcohol, provide disabled students with their rightful place, and last but not least, really entrench a culture of learning in student residences.

Let us make the residences places we can be proud of – places of learning, of diversity, of respect; places of growth and development. This is the ideal we should all strive to achieve.  

2. Why does the management want to force us to integrate?

It is a false argument to debate the issue in terms of “force”. Any decision by a University, or any other organisation, regarding matters of policy, rules and regulations implies a restriction on the choice of an individual and an obligation to comply.  What we should focus on is whether this decision of the Council is in the best interests of our students.

The management of the university believes that it has a responsibility to give students the best education possible, not only in terms of what you learn in the lecture rooms, but especially in the residences as well. The residences can be very powerful places of learning about matters of great importance, both academic and non-academic.

The parallel-medium language policy separates students into largely white/Afrikaans and black/English classes. Efforts are being made to bridge this divide in the classroom, but we can also try to eliminate it in the residences.

The university is committed to building a new culture for the entire institution that is based on values and principles – such as an academic culture, non-racialism, respect for human rights and diversity – among staff and students.

In the context of student residences, the application of these values and principles still allows substantial room for the voluntary exercising of choice by individuals as well as by Residence Committees, notably with regard to the placement of students (they can still place 50 percent of first-year students), as well as the determination of the future character and traditions of a diverse residence.

Furthermore, students can still choose their residences (subject to availability of places), can choose a roommate, and so forth.

3. What about freedom of association?

The rights we enjoy in a democracy must be balanced against other rights, as well as the laws of the country. This means that the right to freedom of association must be balanced against laws that make it illegal to discriminate against other people on the basis of race, language or religion, for instance.

Freedom of association pertains to the right of individuals to form voluntary organisations such as clubs or private boarding houses, or their right to join or not join existing organisations.  You exercise that right when you decide to become a student of the UFS, and again when you choose to live in one of its residences.

However, once you have decided to join an organisation voluntarily, you cannot subsequently demand that that organisation should provide a “club” or residence to your liking where, for instance, you only associate with your choice of co-members. You must accept the policies of that organisation.

In any case, how would that right of yours be balanced against the right of another individual who wishes to associate with a different set of co-members? (For instance – what about the freedom of a student to associate with students NOT from his own background, but indeed from another language, cultural, racial or economic background?) 

The constitutional right to freedom of association can, in any case, not be used to exclude or discriminate on the basis of race or religion (Section 18 of the Bill of Rights).

Besides, the new policy guidelines will still make provision for freedom of association. This right can be exercised freely within a diverse residence with regard to friendships, joint academic work, socialising, sport, etc.

4. Will residences not lose their traditions?

The University appreciates that there are many valuable elements of tradition in residences. However, we must bear in mind that the traditions and character of student residences have evolved and changed over time, and they will continue to evolve and to change. In addition, we do not need to accept all aspects of residence life purely on the basis of tradition, including the unacceptably high level of alcohol abuse and unsavoury, humiliating and discriminatory orientation practices. The new approach to integrated residences provides the opportunity to retain the positive aspects of the current traditions and character, but also to develop new traditions and give residences a new character.

We can now establish a tradition and a character for each residence that are reconcilable with the values of the University as a place of scholarship and are aligned with the human rights approach of our country’s Constitution, the laws of our country and the strengths and diversity of the students in a particular residence.

5. Have students been involved in this process? Is there a role for them to play after the decision has been taken by the Council of the UFS?

In the first semester of 2007, during two rounds of consultations, the primes, SRC and student organisations were consulted about the proposed new placement policy to increase diversity in residences. Some residences also made written submissions on the matter (such as Madelief, Soetdoring, Wag-'n-bietjie, Vergeet-my-nie, Emily Hobhouse). Other residences requested and were granted more time, but did not make any submissions in the end (such as Reitz and Armentum).

Management also had several meetings with the above-mentioned structures to hear first-hand from students their concerns and solutions regarding possible challenges presented by integration in residences.

During these interactions, several excellent ideas and proposals were put forward by students. These views had a definite impact on the eventual proposal that was taken to the University Council, in particular regarding the minimum level of diversity (30%) in junior residences and the fact that residences still want to have a say in the placement of students, rather than the placement decision being left in the hands of Management alone (hence the 50% placement portion of residences). Management values the effort that was put into the process by the primes and residence committees, and thanks them for their contributions.

However, it should be stressed that consultation should not be understood as a process of negotiation, nor does it imply that consensus must be reached. What it means is that Management must take a considered decision after hearing the views of stakeholders.

Management would like students to continue to provide input and ideas regarding the implementation details of the policy guidelines. Task teams have been established and students will be informed about how they can interact with the task teams on an ongoing basis.

6. But integration in the residences was tried in the past (in the late 1990s), and then it failed. Why will it work now?

Yes, the University of the Free State did integrate its residences as far back as 1993, and for a few years it worked. The UFS did it at that time and is now doing so again, because it is the right thing to do. Yet it is important to understand why the previous attempt at racial integration in residences was not successful.

Firstly, both black and white students were much polarised because of the apartheid past. Secondly, there was insufficient management support for students in the residences, the student leaders generally as well as residence heads, in terms of dealing with diversity and related issues. Thirdly, the institutional culture of the UFS and the residences in particular was not addressed as part of broader transformation and integration in residences, whereas it is now being addressed.

In addition, the current decision to integrate residences has the benefit of being implemented after several more years of integration in schooling, sport, workplaces and other aspects of life.

This decision is also based on Management’s commitment to give all the possible support it can to this process.

This is a very important initiative that the UFS is undertaking. Management, in co-operation with students, must ensure that it succeeds. Integrated residences that produce high-quality graduates equipped to deal with the challenges of the workplace and our society is a worthwhile ideal we should all strive to achieve.

If you would like to make a proposal regarding the implementation and practical aspects of the new policy, please send it to the following email address: rector@ufs.ac.za

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept