Elizabeth Pigou-Dennis | From neighbourhoods to fortified settlements – where is Kingston heading?

Kingston is at a crucial moment in the evolution of its physical fabric, property ownership and infrastructural modification.This is the overwriting of a predominantly suburban template with a medium rise condominium template, which, while not entirely new – think Manor Park Apartments, Worthington Towers and Oaklands – is of limited precedent. It coincides with efforts to regenerate downtown Kingston, in terms of commerce, entertainment, the arts and mixed income housing.

The rapid recent increase in construction of this typology is a response to the 2017 Development Order for the city, which allows for “increasing residential densities in already built-up areas”. The order actually states a number of positive intentions – such as regeneration of the downtown, improvement of transportation, enhancement of the cultural and tourism industries and conservation of the natural environment. Nevertheless, based on what is currently observed, there are some troubling matters.

“The design, character and amenity of established residential areas will be protected and where possible the planning authority will support the provision or enhancement of the services and facilities available locally.” (POLICY SP H5 Page 248). This is the intent of the order. However, the pace and content of current interventions strongly belies this intention. It is a cause for concern that the character of still functional residential suburbs is being rapidly transformed for the benefit of the developers and those who may be employed in the design and construction industries in the short term. But there are other short- and long-term issues that risk the very qualities of a “livable city” such as the order purports to envision.

In spatial terms, the early to mid-20th century suburbs tended to be subdivisions of existing large landholdings – pens or estates. Uniform lots, ranging from a quarter acre to one acre were contoured with fences, hedges and secured by gates for pedestrian and later, vehicular entry. On the socio-economic scale, for the upper middle class of business owners and professionals, the high end was Seymour Lands, with large two-storey villas on one-acre lots. The middle classes would include the occupations of clerical workers, artisans and tradespersons, on much smaller lots, in single-storey bungalows in suburbs such as Vineyard Town and Ivy Green.

ECOLOGY OF SUBURBAN SPACE

The ecology of the suburban space featured the enclosed yard space, encompassing grassy lawns, ornamental flowers, and backyards endowed with shady fruit trees. Ackees, breadfruits, mangoes, tamarinds, otaheite apples and sweetsops were among the usual fruit trees, and there were also trees with ornamental blooms, such as the fiery orange poinciana, golden yellow and soft pink pouis, and indigo lignum vitae. Within each residential zone, there was a strong characteristic of neighbourliness – hedges and fences were not so tall as to preclude visibility, greetings, conversations and friendships. At their best, suburbs provided shelter, green space, shade, a diverse selection of edible fruits, birdsong, neighbourly camaraderie, views of mountains. Mona Heights, for instance, was planned with careful attention to internal circulation and provision of a cinema, community church and a park. It was in proximity to a university, hospital, schools and shops.

It is understood that times do change. Real estate interests, property values, changes in social structure, aspirations and population densities are drivers of evolution in the urban and suburban fabrics.

The condominium template, however, upends much of what mature and successful suburbs stood for, while being constructed on existing suburban lots, raises a number of new questions. The manner in which the condos are emerging in the landscape suggests the lack of an overall strategy for genuine liveability, notwithstanding the saccharine words of the Development Order. The approach is opportunistic and ad hoc. As lots in the suburbs become available through buyout by developers, often from ageing owners or their estates, each lot, at a maximum of one acre, becomes a super-development, high-walled and tall gated with security. The relaxation of density and height requirements has facilitated developers cramming many units into a single footprint, and to hover extremely close to perimeters.

ELIMINATE GREEN SPACES

Some add a number of higher-end enhancements, such as swimming pools, recreation areas and basement-level parking. But just about all have eliminated mature trees and green space, substituting palm trees and shrubs. Disturbingly, these developments are climbing the surrounding hillsides – while the promise of exclusivity and sweeping vistas may be pleasing to future inhabitants, yet the beauty of the hills and the importance of trees are being sacrificed. The ad hoc developments have no centralised public green spaces and their points of connectivity to the city is disordered – children, trees, mountains. All these are embedded in the future of the city.

All seem under threat as Kingston inexorably eliminates nature, replaces the concept of the neighbourhood with fortified gated settlements – micro worlds, with no sense of relationship to the whole. The core problem is not that the buildings are relatively tall, but that the projects are not a part of a coordinated urban design approach.

Elizabeth Pigou-Dennis, PhD, is associate professor and vice-dean in the Faculty of the Built Environment, University of Technology, Jamaica. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com