Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Enabling grassroots solutions to the urban housing problem

30 October 2023 Photo Bobby Shabangu

The aftermath of damage to a building in Johannesburg, after burning. — A recent fire that engulfed a downtown Johannesburg building illustrates the challenge of housing a bulging urban population in safe, dignified conditions.

Opinion article by Prof Ivan Turok, Chuma Giyose, Claudia Hitzeroth, Zama Mgwatyu and Andreas Scheba

The tragic loss of 78 lives when fire engulfed a downtown Johannesburg building illustrates the challenge of housing a bulging urban population in safe, dignified conditions.

While the apartheid government resisted urbanisation and refused to build liveable neighbourhoods for black people, the ANC government and metropolitan authorities have been ambivalent, fearing that cities would be overwhelmed.

The ‘RDP’ mass housing programme has constructed about three million small units in peripheral dormitory settlements, far from jobs and amenities. A formulaic ‘one house, one plot’ approach has produced sprawl with sparse facilities. The scheme is currently being cut back and replaced by serviced sites rather than free homes. This is bound to perpetuate urban fragmentation, instead of helping to densify and integrate cities.

More dynamic and adaptable way

Meanwhile, a more dynamic and adaptable way of providing affordable urban housing has emerged from the grassroots, beyond the formal housing system. Many poor households, small building contractors, and emerging developers are responding to the massive demand for low-cost accommodation by investing whatever resources they can muster to construct rental units in their backyards. They are countering unemployment and hardship with laudable energy, initiative, and self-reliance.

Their dwellings range in quality from simple wooden and zinc structures to solid brick-and-mortar two-storey flats with internal ablutions. Standards are improving over time as tenants demand better accommodation and builder-developers learn to design superior homes.

Small-scale rental housing (SSRH) is also stimulating township economies by raising household incomes and creating local jobs across the construction value chain via the supply of building materials, repairs and maintenance, and rental agents and other property services. It is providing a valuable shot in the arm for a struggling building industry.

These positive features and their multiplier effects make SSRH the fastest growing segment of the housing market in the country. An organic process of transforming underused land into more valuable property is being replicated over and over again across cities and towns, driven by the insatiable demand for affordable accommodation. The momentum is fuelled by the emergence of novel lending institutions, such as the Trust for Urban Housing Finance.

Yet, the very success of this phenomenon creates other challenges, including overloaded infrastructure, stretched public services, and degraded open spaces through population growth and crowding.

Dangers of SSRH

Most emerging developers and contractors are unaware of the formal rules and systems that regulate house building and urban development. The informal and unauthorised nature of SSRH poses dangers for resident communities and risks for the developers themselves.

The health and safety of tenants occupying substandard dwellings can be compromised through fires and structural failures. And the developers might never recover the value of their investments if they remain informal.

Research has shown that the costs of regulatory compliance faced by builder-developers are prohibitive. Following the formal approval procedures and paying the requisite professional fees and administrative charges would more than double the cost of developing rental units because of their onerous nature. Most developers either do not apply for permission to build — or they give up out of frustration halfway through this time-consuming process.

Despite the immense opportunities and looming threats facing SSRH, the sector is almost completely ignored by national, provincial, and municipal authorities. The tenants seem invisible to decision-makers because at least they have a roof over their heads and appear better off than people occupying informal settlements.

Finding creative ways to help upgrade and regularise backyard housing means navigating a legal and regulatory minefield that just seems too complicated to public officials, who do not know where to start.

Responding to the policy vacuum

Several grassroots intermediary organisations have begun to respond to the policy vacuum by providing practical support to builder-developers and advice to the government about what actions and reforms are most urgent and important. NGOs are rolling up their sleeves and offering direct assistance and advocacy on behalf of the sector. They believe that empowered citizens should drive local development, so they support small-scale operators looking to construct decent, affordable accommodation.

Some of these organisations have set up training courses and mentoring programmes to help nascent contractors and developers to improve their knowledge and capabilities. Hands-on technical advice and expertise are also offered to individual developers to package their project proposals professionally to help secure external funding.

NGOs have learnt from direct experience that a broad spectrum of builder-developers are engaged in township housing. The support they offer needs to be carefully tailored according to the distinctive needs and potential of different enterprises.

At one end are ‘homeowner developers’, who build in a piecemeal, intuitive, and incremental way according to whatever resources they can secure from personal savings and networks. Women are well represented among this group. They aspire to make better use of their backyards to supplement their household income and create a durable asset for future security.

Micro-developers

At the other end of the spectrum are ‘micro-developers’ who are more proficient and strategic. They have more extensive, specialist networks and can raise longer-term loans to fund their projects. These entrepreneurs usually build larger blocks of between six and twelve units on each plot and operate across multiple sites.

Township developers do not tend to work together closely because of natural rivalry. The spirit of independence has limited their collective voice to engage with public authorities and financial institutions. Consequently, NGOs encourage developers to organise themselves and build trust so that they can learn from each other and speak with one voice about urgent regulatory reforms.

Township developer forums have been created in some places to raise their visibility and negotiating power. These bottom-up initiatives are making a meaningful contribution to reducing the affordable housing backlog and deserve to be taken seriously.

SSRH fosters urban density, enhances livelihoods, and is more sustainable financially than free government housing. The benefits extend beyond shelter to bolster township economies through new and dynamic enterprises, construction jobs, and skills.

The rich experience that NGOs have gained from working in close proximity to everyday realities provides valuable insight into how to scale up and strengthen the SSRH phenomenon. This know-how is unique and different from the mindsets and understanding available to policy makers operating at national or even municipal levels. It is vital that local and national authorities recognise and respect such hard-earned expertise.

Novel social arrangement

Yet, initiatives from below cannot succeed without wider state support. To achieve its full potential, SSRH needs public investment in essential infrastructure and services, including clean water, sanitation, electricity, and waste collection.

The government also needs to simplify the procedures that regulate house building for emerging developers to obtain the legal compliance that will help to raise long-term finance, building insurance and protect the value of their investments when they decide to sell.

One way forward in a context of mistrust between municipalities, developers, and residents is to negotiate a novel social arrangement that will restore mutual obligations and stability. A ‘new deal for communities’ could vary in detail between different places, depending on local circumstances.

Municipalities could commit to improving the infrastructure and streamlining building approvals, in return for developers contributing to the cost of public services by paying property taxes and service charges. NGOs could play a valuable role in communicating and negotiating such arrangements at neighbourhood level.

Prof Ivan Turok, NRF Research Chair – University of the Free State, Distinguished Research Fellow – Human Sciences Research Council, Cape Town, ITurok@hsrc.ac.za
Chuma Giyose, Project Co-ordinator, Development Action Group, Cape Town, chuma@dag.org.za
Claudia Hitzeroth, Project Officer, Development Action Group, Cape Town, claudia@dag.org.za
Zama Mgwatyu, Programme Manager, Development Action Group, Cape Town, zama@dag.org.za
Dr Andreas Scheba, Senior Researcher, Human Sciences Research Council, Cape Town, and Senior Lecturer, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, ascheba@hsrc.ac.za

This article was originally published in the Mail & Guardian

https://mg.co.za/thoughtleader/2023-10-24-enabling-grassroots-solutions-to-the-urban-housing-problem/

News Archive

Media: Sunday Times

2006-05-20

Sunday Times, 4 June 2006

True leadership may mean admitting disunity

In this edited extract from the inaugural King Moshoeshoe Memorial Lecture at the University of the Free State, Professor Njabulo S Ndebele explores the leadership challenges facing South Africa

RECENT events have created a sense that we are undergoing a serious crisis of leadership in our new democracy. An increasing number of highly intelligent, sensitive and committed South Africans, across class, racial and cultural spectrums, confess to feeling uncertain and vulnerable as never before since 1994.

When indomitable optimists confess to having a sense of things unhinging, the misery of anxiety spreads. We have the sense that events are spiralling out of control and that no one among the leadership of the country seems to have a definitive handle on things.

There can be nothing more debilitating than a generalised and undefined sense of anxiety in the body politic. It breeds conspiracies and fear.

There is an impression that a very complex society has developed, in the last few years, a rather simple, centralised governance mechanism in the hope that delivery can be better and more quickly driven. The complexity of governance then gets located within a single structure of authority rather than in the devolved structures envisaged in the Constitution, which should interact with one another continuously, and in response to their specific settings, to achieve defined goals. Collapse in a single structure of authority, because there is no robust backup, can be catastrophic.

The autonomy of devolved structures presents itself as an impediment only when visionary cohesion collapses. Where such cohesion is strong, the impediment is only illusory, particularly when it encourages healthy competition, for example, among the provinces, or where a province develops a character that is not necessarily autonomous politically but rather distinctive and a special source of regional pride. Such competition brings vibrancy to the country. It does not necessarily challenge the centre.

Devolved autonomy is vital in the interests of sustainable governance. The failure of various structures to actualise their constitutionally defined roles should not be attributed to the failure of the prescribed governance mechanism. It is too early to say that what we have has not worked. The only viable corrective will be in our ability to be robust in identifying the problems and dealing with them concertedly.

We have never had social cohesion in South Africa — certainly not since the Natives’ Land Act of 1913. What we definitely have had over the decades is a mobilising vision. Could it be that the mobilising vision, mistaken for social cohesion, is cracking under the weight of the reality and extent of social reconstruction, and that the legitimate framework for debating these problems is collapsing? If that is so, are we witnessing a cumulative failure of leadership?

I am making a descriptive rather than an evaluative inquiry. I do not believe that there is any single entity to be blamed. It is simply that we may be a country in search of another line of approach. What will it be?

I would like to suggest two avenues of approach — an inclusive model and a counter-intuitive model of leadership.

In an inclusive approach, leadership is exercised not only by those who have been put in some position of power to steer an organisation or institution. Leadership is what all of us do when we express, sincerely, our deepest feelings and thoughts; when we do our work, whatever it is, with passion and integrity.

Counter-intuitive leadership lies in the ability of leaders to read a problematic situation, assess probable outcomes and then recognise that those outcomes will only compound the problem. Genuine leadership, in this sense, requires going against probability in seeking unexpected outcomes. That’s what happened when we avoided a civil war and ended up with an “unexpected” democracy.

Right now, we may very well hear desperate calls for unity, when the counter-intuitive imperative would be to acknowledge disunity. A declaration of unity where it manifestly does not appear to exist will fail to reassure.

Many within the “broad alliance” might have the view that the mobilising vision of old may have transformed into a strategy of executive steering with a disposition towards an expectation of compliance. No matter how compelling the reasons for that tendency, it may be seen as part of a cumulative process in which popular notions of democratic governance are apparently undermined and devalued; and where public uncertainty in the midst of seeming crisis induces fear which could freeze public thinking at a time when more voices ought to be heard.

Could it be that part of the problem is that we are unable to deal with the notion of opposition? We are horrified that any of us could be seen to have become “the opposition”. The word has been demonised. In reality, it is time we began to anticipate the arrival of a moment when there is no longer a single, overwhelmingly dominant political force as is currently the case. Such is the course of history. The measure of the maturity of the current political environment will be in how it can create conditions that anticipate that moment rather than seek to prevent it. We see here once more the essential creativity of the counter-intuitive imperative.

This is the formidable challenge of a popular post-apartheid political movement. Can it conceptually anticipate a future when it is no longer overwhelmingly in control, in the form in which it is currently, and resist, counter-intuitively, the temptation to prevent such an eventuality? Successfully resisting such an option would enable its current vision and its ultimate legacy to our country to manifest in different articulations, which then contend for social influence. In this way, the vision never really dies; it simply evolves into higher, more complex forms of itself. Consider the metaphor of flying ants replicating the ant community by establishing new ones.

We may certainly experience the meaning of comradeship differently, where we will now have “comrades on the other side”.

Any political movement that imagines itself as a perpetual entity should look at the compelling evidence of history. Few movements have survived those defining moments when they should have been more elastic, and that because they were not, did not live to see the next day.

I believe we may have reached a moment not fundamentally different from the sobering, yet uplifting and vision-making, nation-building realities that led to Kempton Park in the early ’90s. The difference between then and now is that the black majority is not facing white compatriots across the negotiating table. Rather, it is facing itself: perhaps really for the first time since 1994. Could we apply to ourselves the same degree of inventiveness and rigorous negotiation we displayed leading up to the adoption or our Constitution?

This is not a time for repeating old platitudes. It is the time, once more, for vision.

In the total scheme of things, the outcome could be as disastrous as it could be formative and uplifting, setting in place the conditions for a true renaissance that could be sustained for generations to come.

Ndebele is Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cape Town and author of the novel The Cry of Winnie Mandela

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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