Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
31 August 2020 | Story André Damons | Photo Supplied
Prof Ivan Turok
Prof Ivan Turok

The number of people infected by the coronavirus is linked to the density of urban living. South Africa’s townships and informal settlements are bearing the brunt of the disease, on top of all their existing problems of unemployment, poverty, hunger, and crime. This is a disturbing situation and demands greater attention across society.

This is according to Prof Ivan Turok from the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), the Department of Economics and Finance, and the Centre for Development Support at the University of the Free State (UFS), who has recently been awarded a Research Chair in City-Region Economies at the UFS by the South African Research Chairs Initiative (SARChI).

Prof Turok was part of a webinar discussion on ‘Urban Living Post-COVID-19’ with Dr Geci Karuri-Sebina – who manages the research programme at South African Cities Network and who has two decades’ experience working and publishing in the fields of urban development, innovation, and foresight – and Mr Thireshen Govender, architect and founder of UrbanWorks. They analysed how COVID-19 challenges urban living, social distancing, and the de-densification of cities as South Africa heads towards 70% of its population living in urban areas.

According to Prof Turok, urban density has been blamed for the spread of the virus. “The fear of people crowding together has caused negative reactions from government, from business, and from households. This is unlikely to be a short-lived, temporary phenomenon. It will be with us for some time to come.”

“The virus poses an ongoing risk to society, with the prospect of second and third waves taking hold. A lockdown could be re-imposed and further efforts could be made to enforce distancing and de-densification of cities, particularly our densest settlements,” said Prof Turok.

 

De-risking urban density

There was a simple but compelling idea at the heart of his presentation, which should also be “at the heart of a more effective and inclusive response to the pandemic”. At the moment, the government’s response to the crisis facing our poorest communities is uninspiring. “We need a more positive vision for the future than wearing masks and washing our hands.”

“We need to be bolder and more imaginative about de-risking urban density. In other words, making crowded neighbourhoods safer and more secure for people to live in. Density poses multiple risks to residents. How do we reduce these risks in ways that generate wider benefits, rather than business as usual – forcing people to change their behaviour and follow protocols?”

With reference to New York, which was severely affected by the virus, Prof Turok showed that it was not density per se that was the problem, but rather the type of density. The densest part of the city (Manhattan) was far less affected by the virus than poorer outlying communities. “This gives us a clue that more floor space in taller buildings helps to prevent crowding and makes density more liveable,” said Prof Turok.

The reality in South Africa is also different when you drill down and distinguish between different kinds of places. Big cities have been affected worse than towns and rural areas – in terms of the incidence of infections and the number of deaths. Within cities, there have been far more problems in the townships and informal settlements than in the suburbs. In Cape Town, for example, the southern and northern suburbs and the central city have been barely affected by the virus. However, infections have been very high on the Cape Flats, including Khayelitsha, Langa, Gugulethu, Philippi, and Mitchells Plain.

“Population densities in some of these areas are more than 100 times higher than in the affluent suburbs. The differences are very striking.”

“Incomes on the Cape Flats are also much lower than elsewhere in the city. So, there is a correspondence between density and the disease, unlike New York,” says Prof Turok.

All the discussions about the pandemic so far has focused on the negative aspects of urban density for the risk of transmission. This ignores all the benefits of dense urban living. Intense human interaction fosters learning and creativity, which raises productivity and innovation. Concentrated populations generate economies of scale in the provision of infrastructure and institutions such as universities. Cities give firms greater choice of workers and vice versa.

 

Pure population density and economic density

Prof Turok continued by saying that physical distancing can be socially and economically damaging. “Attempts to force people apart through de-densification undermine all kinds of personal networks, weaken the social fabric of communities, and erode the economic advantages of proximity that are so important for cities.”

“We need to understand that people crowding together in dense informal settlements is a symptom of something more fundamental, namely poverty. The pressure on land reflects the fact that low-income households can’t afford the space standards of middle- and upper-income groups. Forcing people apart (or to stay home) to reduce the risk of transmission just treats the symptoms of the problem. It cannot be a lasting solution. It doesn’t build resilience to confront the multiple challenges facing poor communities,” said Prof Turok.

A key part of a lasting solution can be summed up as building economic density. This involves increasing investment in two- or three-storey buildings to give people more living space and to free up land at ground-floor level to accommodate essential infrastructure and more public space for markets and social interaction. A better living and working environment would strengthen community resilience to public-health problems and promote all-round development. The idea of economic density offers a practical vision that can inspire hope in a better future, rather than the status quo of wearing masks in crowded places.

“We need to de-risk urban density through tangible investment, rather than forced distancing or dispersal. This will help to bring about far-reaching improvements to people’s lives in cities. At the moment, the lack of economic density in impoverished communities is a much bigger problem than excessive population densities.”

News Archive

Diversity gains ground in SRC election
2005-08-19

 

The University of the Free State (UFS) reached another milestone in its transformation process last night (Tuesday 16 August 2005) when a more diverse group of students than ever before were elected to serve on the Main Campus SRC.  

In addition to this, the UFS experienced a smooth and problem-free election process – unlike recent years when the Main Campus SRC elections were frequently disrupted or marred by attempts of intimidation or obstruction.

The election took place on Monday 15 August 2005 and the results were announced last night (Tuesday 16 August 2005) by Dr Ezekiel Moraka, Vice-Rector:  Student Affairs at the UFS.

Seven black students are to serve on the Main Campus SRC, the highest number of black students ever to be elected on the Main Campus SRC since black students were admitted to the UFS in the late 1980’s. 

Nine of the 18 SRC members were directly elected and nine on the basis of proportional representation (PR).   The PR system was introduced after amendments to the constitution of the Main Campus SRC were approved by the UFS Council in June 2005. 

According to Dr Moraka the elections on the Main Campus were a resounding success.  “We received double the amount of votes this year: A total of 4 846 votes were cast, while 396 votes were spoilt.  Last year only 2 192 votes were cast,” said Dr Moraka.

Dr Moraka said that there were no disruptions of the process and no objections regarding the voting process were received.

Mr Graeme Bradley, thirdyear student in B Com Human Resource Management, was elected as SRC President of the Main Campus for 2005/2006.  Mr Bradley was SRC representative for Sports, Arts and Culture in 2004/2005.

In the PR section of the election, Here XVII (with 36,1% of  the vote) and Sasco (with 36% of the vote) received an equal amount of seats (3) for the SRC.  These percentages also provided them with fourteen (14) seats for the Student Parliament, which consists of 40 seats. 

“This outcome is significant to us as, for the first time we have a clear indication of what the actual support of these affiliated organisations is on campus,” said Dr Moraka.  


Media release

Issued by:  Lacea Loader
   Media Representative
   Tel:  (051) 401-2584
   Cell:  083 645 2454
   E-mail:  loaderl.stg@mail.uovs.ac.za

17 August 2005
 

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