Mitchells Plain Hospital Landscape

Overall score: 54%

Located at the northern point of the Cape Flats Aquifer (CFA) this site drains stormwater to recharge the aquifer sustainably, while providing an indigenous healing landscape for the Mitchells Plain Hospital.

The site is testament to adaptation by engineers and landscape architects to create a water sensitive landscape, beautifully.

Who’s involved?
Tarna Klitzner Landscape Architect
Cape Contours Landscape Solutions (CCLS)
Client: Department of Transport and Public Works – Health

More info:
Top landscape award for Mitchells Plain (IOL)
Cape Town Green Map
Western Cape Government

How does it compare with the 17 Principles?

Scoring:
0 – Does not address this at all / unknown
1 – Potential to address this, but currently unaddressed
2 – The design addresses this, implementation can do more
3 – Integrated in the project, good implementation.

A. Regenerative Water Services:

A.1. Replenish Waterbodies and Their Ecosystems: 3. Stormwater recharge into aquifer.
A.2. Reduce the Amount of Water and Energy Used: 3. Waterwise indigenous vegetation.
A.3. Reuse, Recover, Recycle 3. Local rocks were re-used, plants were sourced and propagated from the site.
A.4. Use a Systemic Approach Integrated with Other Services: 3. Design incorporated sound engineering principles, and was appropriate to the healing landscape of the hospital.
A.5. Increase The Modularity of Systems and Ensure Multiple Options: 2. Multiple avenues for stormwater ingress as well as engineering required overflow grates.

Comment: What is the potential for the hospital’s operation to become more water sensitive?

B. Water Sensitive Urban Design:

B.1. Enable Regenerative Water Services: 3. Through the infiltration and the sandy underlying soil, the water is treated as it moves towards the aquifer.
B.2. Design Urban Spaces to Reduce Flood Risks 3. Reducing flood risk was central to this project’s design, through both the landscape architecture and the engineering ‘back-up’ infrastructure.
B.3. Enhance Liveability With Visible Water: 2. Being in a water scarce environment with high wind makes it hard to make water visible, along with concerns for safety.
B.4. Modify and Adapt Urban Materials to Minimise Environmental Impact: 2. Materials were sourced from site where possible for the landscape. Unknown about the actual building.

C. Basin Connected Cities:

C.1. Plan to Secure Water Resources and Mitigate Drought: 1. Drought mitigation through indigenous plants and aquifer recharge. Unknown site-use specific measures.
C.2. Protect the Quality of Water Resources: 0. Unknown.
C.3. Prepare for Extreme Events: 0. Unknown.

D. Water-Wise Communities:

D.1. Empowered Citizens:  0. unknown, is the local community and hospital management involved?
D.2. Professionals Aware of Water Co-Benefits: 0. Unknown.
D.3. Transdisciplinary Planning Teams: 2. The project addressed this, but continuing maintenance is uncertain.
D4. Policy Makers Enabling Water Wise Action: 0. Unknown. Has this project promoted policy change?
D.5. Leaders that Engage and Engender Trust: 0. Unknown.

Overall score: 54%

More info on what the criteria mean: The IWA 17 principles
Comments on this case study: Contact us

Please note: The aim of AquaSavvy is for the case studies to improve over time, along with educating the wider public. This scoring can, and should, improve with more information and more intervention.