February 19, 2007
By Neil Fraser
"WE come together in cities for specific reasons. Some of these reasons are the same as they always were, some are different.
"We come to cities to work. Not, perhaps, to assemble cars, or to sew dresses, or to build locomotives, but to do brain work. Cities continue to be the best places for financial work, communications work and much research work.
"Creative and artistic work likewise flourishes in cities. So, we need cities with educated workforces that can support those industries. We also come to cities to play, to rub shoulders, to exchange ideas, simply to be part of a crowd (whether we are going to a museum, a theatre or a casino).
"What we need are cities where we can do these things safely and pleasurably. Urban activities require an urban infrastructure. We need cities that work in terms of education, policing, transportation, sanitation.
"We also need cities with districts that are vital. We are learning that much of urban vitality comes from the physical proximity of commercial, retail and especially residential uses.
"These types of districts - some have called them 24-hour downtowns - are another characteristic of the type of city we need."
So wrote urbanist Witold Rybczynski some years back.
Those words have been tumbling around in my mind for the past few weeks as I have listened to a wide variety of Joburgers from all walks of life talking about their needs and fears, their frustrations and their aspirations in relation to the inner city.
We have now completed a third of the planned 24 stakeholders' working groups leading up the executive mayor's Inner City Summit and Charter on 5 May. Last week three sessions were held - the first for residential development (on Tuesday) and economic development (on Wednesday) and the second for public and leisure spaces, arts, culture and heritage (on Friday).
Almost all of the aspects that Rybczynski refers to in answering the question "What kind of cities do we need?" were inherent in the sessions. And, although one could get quite depressed at some of the comments and stories that we have heard, on a macro level I feel that we are inexorably moving towards the kind of city that Rybczynski sketches.
Urban vitality
You'll note, for instance, that he talks of much of urban vitality stemming from "the physical proximity of commercial, retail and especially residential uses".
If the inner city is changing at all, and it is - rapidly, it is in this aspect of residential use. I remember writing way back in the mid-1990s that over a few decades there was absolutely no increase in the stock of inner city residential units. On the other hand, there was an increase in numbers of people living in the inner city but that was because of a massive increase in the numbers of people living in the units.
That has changed - and changed dramatically. Scores of commercial buildings have been refurbished into residential accommodation and scores more of existing residential units have been upgraded. For the most part they are being well managed and are an asset to the city.
The effect has been to "shrink" the city - not in terms of geographic spread, but in terms of the numbers of commercial buildings. The rash of empty commercial buildings that once existed throughout the inner city has given way to good quality, well-managed accommodation and the demand, according to a number of developers, is insatiable.
It is quite likely that the numbers of people living in the inner city area has almost doubled in the past five or six years - we are doing some exercises at the moment that will give us a better idea of the actual growth - but it is clear that demand will continue to see an expansion of accommodation.
Of course demand isn't only related to middle-income housing that the market is quite willing and able to supply. We also have many thousands of urban poor for whom housing is a far greater problem.
One of the major difficulties, we discovered, was in relation to the City's rates and service charges - not just the quantum but also the inappropriateness of the charges relative to the lower end of the market. Here it is generally the public sector that is going to have to come up with solutions, although the answer appears to have been found in "Europa-style" accommodation. (I described the Europa Hotel in a previous Citichat).
Certainly the general opinion was that communal accommodation with shared facilities was the answer but still rates and service charges would be problematic. Evidently administered costs amount to about 60 percent of developers' operational costs and are a minimum of R550 a month based on current City charges.
That means that operational costs would be about R900 a month. If the rental to income ratio should be not more than 30 percent, that would mean a monthly income of about R3 000. A number of developers expressed an interest at this level suggesting that communal facilities would be a solution, provided that there could be more certainty in regards to rates and service charges.
But for earners below that level, or non-earners, the market cannot respond and we have to rely on the public sector to address that need.
On Thursday we met representatives of the City's service providers - electricity, water, sewage, refuse collection and so on - to determine if there was a danger that services would not be able to keep up with demand. While the jury is still out on that, there is an equal concern that public open space and social services won't keep up.
These are good, positive concerns - not that long ago we were agonizing over the empty buildings.
Mixed income housing
One of the aspects that we tested at the residential stakeholders' working group (SWG) session was whether developers of middle income accommodation would consider making between 10 percent and 20 percent of their developments available for low income families.
There was a clear reaction that this would be impractical, on three counts. Firstly, it was claimed, similar units for differing rentals would inevitably lead to disputes. Secondly, if only 10 percent to 20 percent of the total units in a development were targeted at low income earners, the time taken to meet the demand would be greatly extended and it would be better to have larger dedicated projects targeting this level.
Thirdly, and this did not surface at the session but in private discussions I had with some developers, the class difference between middle and low-income earners is such that the management of the project would be very complex, if not impossible.
There are, of course, many examples of mixed income housing or mixed income districts that do work. Glasgow, Dublin, London come to mind - as does Nairobi if we want an example nearer to home.
But there are some interesting models in the United States that should be looked at not just in relation to mixed income housing but in relation to innovative funding. Reading up on a couple of examples in Atlanta I was interested to find that the barriers are similar to those found here: finding sufficient sites; finding management teams to run such projects; and appropriate operating costs - one of the ways that this is tackled is through rental subsidies.
The final barrier is evidently the large capital cost of new or substantially refurbished housing relative to the incomes of occupants. In one of the examples the mix is 40 percent market related, 40 percent for those who get rental subsidies (described as the "working poor") and 20 percent is classified as public housing.
The ethnic mix was 70 percent African American, 20 percent Caucasian and 10 percent Hispanic and Asian. Reasons for success were given as: being located in attractive, highly accessible neighbourhoods; being well designed and visually appealing buildings that do not look like "public housing projects"; and being well managed, particularly with respect to resident screening and ensuring that only applicants with "middle-class behaviour patterns" are accepted, irrespective of their income levels.
The report that I read concluded as follows: "(The projects) have performed a truly remarkable service in dispelling the entrenched belief that it is not possible to design financially successful projects in which there is income-mixing at the block level. If the families in these projects have similar values, even though their incomes are quite different, then income integration seems possible, at least in the rental sector."
Stakeholders' session
Finally, these are some of the issues discussed at the session:
1. Access to City's social package
A creative plan is required to ensure that non-account holders get access to full social packages.
2. Emergency housing and other measures to enable relocation of people where refurbishment of unsafe buildings is critical
Proactive interim measures are required to improve health and safety in critical buildings, as is the provision of sufficient emergency and short-term accommodation to house people who have to be removed from unsafe buildings temporarily.
3. Inner city housing (for both rental and ownership) that caters to all income brackets
A comprehensive, large scale plan for roll-out of X number of units of new accommodation is required. (X could be anything from 50 000 to 150 000 units)
A package of incentives to encourage and enable development of accommodation for all income brackets (including for example reconstruction zone subsidies) is required.
The public sector must accept responsibility for providing housing at below the R800 a month level and help to make the model viable for R800 to R1 000 a month communal housing if the private sector is to react to this sector.
Consideration must be given to extending the urban development zone time period beyond 2009.
Rates rebates should be considered under certain circumstances - possibly on a stepped basis during the first two to three years of a project coming on stream, whether new or refurbished, and also to give incentives for demolitions.
From a viability point of view, low cost housing will be located in existing buildings, middle and upper end housing could be in refurbished or new buildings. It is impractical to consider mixed incomes (namely low and middle) in the same building.
The 10 percent to 20 percent option is unrealistic because it will slow down delivery of lower income housing - lower income housing must be a specific focus.
The City's Department of Housing must negotiate the opening of the flow of subsidies with the provincial government.
4. Better Buildings Programme
A complete reconfiguration of the Better Buildings Programme is required.
5. Various system blockages preventing development of residential accommodation at scale
Regardless of the package of incentives, the removal of key system constraints (clearance certificates, incorrect rating of developments, and so forth) is required.
Clearances take too long and delays promote corruption. Plan approval to be speeded up. Billing remains a problem and corruption is widespread
6. Targeted measures to prevent hijacking, slumlording, fraud and non-payment crises
All buildings must be brought into good standing with both regular payments of rates and services and consistent re-investment in the building.
The PIE Act is a major problem that is prejudicial to good management - a system must be found to deal with non-payers that can be implemented rapidly.
An investigation should be launched into the possibility of establishing a property court - possibly incorporated into the municipal court.
By-laws should be up-dated into a practical form for easy enforcement.
The lack of consistency at the landlord-tenant tribunal must be investigated and managing agents need a charter and business standards.
7. Sectional title
A proactive programme to deal with collapsed sectional title arrangements and poor management by bodies corporate is desperately needed.
8. Infrastructure to support massive increase in residential accommodation
Strategic investment is required in infrastructure (water, sanitation, power, waste, roads and stormwater).
It may be necessary to extend the physical area under consideration to include areas to the south and east of the inner city.
Infrastructure must include social infrastructure, clinics, crèches, schools, parks, sports facilities, and so forth.
9. Public environment and security to support increase in residential densities
A coherent programme of residential improvement districts needs to be developed.
Central improvement districts are costly to establish and initially will need council support.
10. Hostels
An accelerated programme of upgrading is required.
11. Non-performance of council departments and utilities
There is a major lack of law enforcement. We need to change the model from "blitz" enforcement to enforcement everyday.
A system of integrated scorecards should be investigated to promote measurement and accountability.
12. Tariffs
The tariff system is antiquated and unrealistic, providing inappropriate tariffs. Certain tariffs are counter development, for example, they don't facilitate communal living.
Property owners buying services in bulk and on-selling to tenants should be investigated.
A fixed rates and services charge for the lower end of the market, especially for communal living, should be investigated.
Administered costs are 60 percent of the problem, everything must be done to reduce this figure.
13 Communications
Investors don't know who to talk to.
14 New vision and framework
We need a framework for management that aligns private and public sectors and that everyone understands, as well as a strategy that aligns with the vision.
15 City fund
The establishment of an inner city fund, which could assist with issues such as the conversion to pre-paid meters, should be investigated.
Developers want accountability and transparency for issues such as large plan approval payment, advertising income, and so forth.
16. Parking
Implementing the Cape Town model should be investigated.
17. Black Economic Empowerment (BEE)
Any residential strategy must include BEE as a major component to change ownership patterns in the inner city.
These are interesting and very important issues regarding a critical part of the city's future.
Regards,
Neil
Walking Tours by the Parktown & Westcliff Heritage Trust
The costs below are for members and non-members. Booking must be done at Computicket on 011 340 8000 or through the Computicket website. For more information, phone 011 482 3349 in the mornings only.
Wednesday, 21 February: Alexandra Bus Tour
This tour is an absolute must. Hear the history from 1904 to date - poignant, painful, tumultuous and victorious – and visit the inspiring African Ballet Theatre's programme for the aspiring dancers of Alex. This ballet outreach is unique and the chief executive and prime dancers Iain MacDonald and Karen Beukes will be present.
The bus leaves the Sunnyside Park Hotel at 12 noon. Bring your own packed lunch; the tour lasts about four-and-a-half hours and costs R180 or R200. Numbers are limited.
Saturday, 24 February: Architects and their Homes
This is a bus tour. There will be details next week.
Permission to use web site material
Publishers may use material from this site free of charge, as long as:
- Credit is given to either the "City of Johannesburg website
(www.joburg.org.za)" or to "Johannesburg News Agency
(www.joburg.org.za)";
- If the article is used online, a link is provided to the original
article on this website;
- The name of the article's author is acknowledged;
-
The webmaster is informed of how and where the material is used (fill
in this brief online form).
Johannesburg News Agency is operated by BIG Media at 011-484-1400 |
