Change by Design Cape Town (2015)

CHANGE BY DESIGN

Re-imagining regeneration through participatory design in Cape Town

WORKSHOP REPORT 2015

Architecture Sans Frontières UK (ASF-UK)

Compiled by: Development Action Group (DAG)

CHANGE BY DESIGN

Re-imagining regeneration through participatory design in Cape Town

WORKSHOP REPORT 2015

Architecture Sans Frontières UK (ASF-UK)

Compiled by: Development Action Group (DAG)

INDEX Acknowledgements 2 Introduction 6 Policy & Planning

24

1 / Introduction 2 / Woodstock In-depth 3 / Policies and Plans 4 / Stakeholder Analysis 5 / Common Ways Forward 6 / Policy and Planning Principles 7 / Conclusion Dwelling 48 1 / Introduction 2 / Bromwell Street 3 / Pine Road 4 / Gympie Street 5 / Springfield Terrace 6 / Shared Aspirations 7 / Dwelling Principles 8 / Conclusion

Community 70 1 / Introduction 2 / Safety and Security 3 / Activity 4 / Ownership and Accessibility 5 / Shaping Public Space: Engagement 6 / Shared Aspirations 7 / Community Principles 8 / Conclusion City 90 1 / Introduction 2 / Freedom Park, Mitchell’s Plain 3 / Kensington and Factreton 4 / South Road 5 / Egoli, Philippi Horticultural Area 6 / Shared Aspirations 7 / City Principles 8 / Conclusion Integrated Principles 118 Conclusion 120

Acknowledgments

The coordinators of the 2015 Change by Design workshop: Alexandre Apsan Frediani, Beatrice De Carli, Matthew French and CĂŠlia Macedo, along with supporting team members, Eleanor Bainbridge, Jhono Bennett (University of Johannesburg), Julian Walker and Ben Campkin (University College London), are very grateful to the following individuals and organisations for enabling the bringing together of diverse stakeholders for a 10 day workshop in April 2015, examining contemporary urban issues through participatory design and planning processes.

Helen Macgregor-Rourke from Development Action Group (DAG) has been fundamental in introducing the team at Architecture Sans Frontieres UK (ASF-UK) to the struggles faced by vulnerable residents in Woodstock, as well as displaced citizens living in the urban periphery of Cape Town, and the work of DAG in building a platform for community-led discussions and action. We acknowledge the collective vision and work of this network of community groups, academic researchers, built environment practitioners, and NGOs as a basis on which the themes and focus of the workshop emerged.

Bringing the Change by Design methodology to Cape Town has been fundamental in shaping our understanding of the challenges faced by marginalised groups in cities in South Africa and globally, and framing discussions and interventions going forward. The organisation of the City Tour and one-day Symposium gave a rich and evocative introduction to the context of the workshop, both for the facilitators and the international participants, many of whom came with limited prior knowledge of the context. Throughout the workshop DAG was incredibly generous in offering space at the DAG cafe to meet, plan and carry out work. The logistics of the workshop would not have been possible without the fantastic support of the staff and volunteers at this community facility. Helen’s role in arranging meetings with various community leaders and residents allowed us to engage meaningfully with a range of citizens and groups.

Thanks also to Willard Matiashe for contributing to the report.

A special thank you to workshop participants Claire du Trevou and Ayesha Issadeen who continued to work at DAG after the initial engagement, contributing to the report and carrying outcomes from the workshop forward.

2

Thank you to photographer Paul Grendon for documenting parts of the workshop and the areas of the city which were under focus, and for the evocative images produced.

We would like to thank Prof. Ivan Turok for his talk about the spatial form of Cape Town; Josette Cole for introducing the sociospatial development of the city; and Kurt Orderson, a filmmaker documenting the impacts of gentrification across three cities.

We thank Malcolm McCarthy of the National Association of Social Housing Organisations (NASHO) for presenting the range of low-cost housing procurement mechanisms currently in operation, with recommendations for means to develop policy and partnership opportunities to pave the way for better housing options for the city’s most vulnerable. We are grateful for the input from the City of Cape Town for sharing their future vision and planning frameworks.

We are incredibly grateful to the residents of Woodstock, in particular Pine Road, Gympie Street, Springfield Terrace, and Bromwell Street, as well as those in the wider city, South Road, Egoli Informal Settlement, Freedom Park and Kensington, a number of whom gave multiple days of their time to contribute to discussions and help us to understand the complexity of the struggles which they face. We thank all those that gave their time for interviews, surveys, participatory dreaming activities, and action planning.

The representatives of the following organisations contributed greatly to discussions on the final day: [Woodstock Community Outreach Forum, Cape Town Partnership, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Isandla, Community Development Resource Association, CoCT Human Settlements, Economic Development Partnership, Earthbuild, District Six, UCT School of Architecture and Planning, Open Democracy Advice Centre, People’s Environmental Planning, African Centre for Cities, and Ndifuna Ukwazi.]

A big thank you to the trustees and associates of ASF-UK for support, during and after the workshop, and for the continual growth and consolidation of the work which we undertake. We are also grateful for support from Sheffield School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, and from The Bartlett Development 3

Planning Unit and UCL Urban Laboratory, University College London.

The South African workshop participants brought a wide variety of experience from community organisers, to built environment practitioners, and researchers. Thanks to Nkwame Cedile from Open Democracy Advice Centre, Loyiso Kaite and Siphokazi Kwakweni from DAG, Zarina Nteta from Cape Town Partnership, Luleke Zepe from Elamilima Environmental Project, and Marli Swart from Arup SA. Finally, a huge thank you to the international participants Gustavo Briz, Annelies De Nijs, Killian Doherty, Yiping Dong, Di Han, Xieming Huan, Markus Kaltenbach, Marian Macken, Alke Misselhorn, Caitlin Nisos, Helena Ohlsson, Mariana Poli Gortan, Zhao Qing, Ignacio Rodríguez, Irfan Safdag, Matthias Schäfges, Laura Sestieri, Syazwani Shaharir, Tatiana Southey-Bassols, Chenxing Sun, Vilde Vanberg, Weiping Wang, Lu Wei, Minghuan Xie, Chen Yu, Li Zhaohan, Zhao Zhe and Bian Zhifan for your insights, collaborative approach, drive, and energy throughout the workshop.

Change by Design 2015: Cape Town is an initiative by Architecture Sans Frontières UK (ASF-UK) and Development Action Group (DAG).

With the support of The Bartlett Development Planning Unit and UCL Urban Laboratory (University College London) and the Sheffield School of Architecture (University of Sheffield).

Right: interviewing residents of Freedom Park, Mitchell’s Plain

4

5

Introduction

WOODSTOCK IN CONTEXT Located adjacent to the Cape Town CBD, city bowl and the historic District Six, Woodstock is Cape Town’s oldest suburb.

The suburb is divided into two sections by the main road, Victoria Road. The upper section of Woodstock has larger, gracefully restored Victorian, semi-detached homes; while the urban fabric of the lower section is a mix of large industrial buildings interspersed with small row houses. The neighbouring areas include Cape Town city centre, located at the western side of the suburb; Salt River at the eastern side of the suburb; the Foreshore at the northern section of the suburb; and University Estate and Walmer Estates located to the south of Woodstock.

Woodstock suburb falls under Sub-council 15 and the entire suburb has been divided into two separate wards namely ward 55 and 57.

Woodstock has a strong history of providing access to the economic opportunities of Cape Town through its strategic location, affordability, and strong community structures.

Particularly under apartheid’s infamous Group Areas Act (1950), Woodstock was one of only two areas in Cape Town’s wider central city that allowed people of colour to maintain residence and gain access to the economy of the city. Woodstock partly indicates perhaps three or more different economic shifts or phases of economic evolution. For example, the economy of Woodstock started with the natural economics of the indigenous hunter gatherers of the Khoisan tribes, followed by the Dutch agrarians at a later point in time. Land was the major component of the economic system and today agriculture remains a major component of Woodstock’s history. This was followed by the next great era of industrial revolution. Architectural remnants of the industrial age are still visible in some parts of Woodstock especially in lower Woodstock area. Today, Woodstock appears to be going through a transitional phase from an industrial economy, towards a space dominated by digital and information service economies. Some of the old factory buildings are being renovated and retrofitted into residential buildings, while others have been converted into markets and office space, such as The Old Biscuit Mill and The Palms Centre. The transition has 6

had both positive and negative implications on various socioeconomic desires of countless stakeholders. Today, Woodstock is an eclectic mix of trendy, young entrepreneurs and artists, in stark contrast to the existing fabric of an ageing middle class.

Unlike many of its neighbouring suburbs, Woodstock managed to resist brutal apartheid evictions and remain an integrated community. Now, 22 years into South Africa’s democracy, as Woodstock undergoes spatial reconstruction, it is experiencing a less explicit form of evictions taking place under the guise of ‘development’.

The gradual exodus of industry from Woodstock during the 60’s through the 80’s, coupled with development incentives offered by the municipality, opened Woodstock up as prime real estate for redevelopment. Slowly, as businesses have moved in, property prices have crept up, increasing the number of lowincome rental housing residents being displaced. Dilapidated row and terrace houses, full of ‘character’, are bought up by the block and either demolished to make way for new ‘megadevelopments’ or are renovated and rezoned for business.

As such, development in the area has had an adverse splintering effect on both the urban spatial quality, as well as on the socio-spatial qualities of Woodstock. Residential streets are interrupted by businesses, developments have distinct boundaries and small, controllable access points and slowly, common public spaces are being encroached upon for parking and private use.

SITUATING WOODSTOCK Woodstock is one of Cape Town’s oldest suburbs located within easy access to the City Bowl. Set against the shoulder of Table Mountain, with Victorian townhouses jostling for space amongst a variety of old and new industrial and commercial architecture, Woodstock’s sloping streets are generally full of character.

It has a very artistic village vibe with trendy work and living spaces, mostly old converted buildings and homes. There are many small boutique-style and artisan shops and many creative industries. A multitude of en vogue restaurants and a wide variety of artistic businesses that radiates with culture makes 7

ZONNEB (DISTRICT

PAARDEN EILAND

FORESHORE

SALT RIVER WOODSTOCK

B LOEM T SIX)

OBSERVATORY

10

Woodstock an excellent up-and-coming neighbourhood. The large investment on redevelopment of old factories has revived shops and restaurants in this previously run-down historic old suburb. However, fruits of the regeneration initiative have yet to trickle down to the informal dwellers residing in various section of the suburb.

The general notion of urban dynamics is change, and the implication of change is that any initiative to improve the status quo eventually hurts others. The much-hoped-for vision of revival in older city neighbourhoods poses a threat to unanticipated victims: the urban poor. The Woodstock suburb is a classic example of a historic suburb that is at risk in terms of failing to secure space to develop affordable housing and to promote greater social integration. The conventional wisdom is that the market cannot provide affordable housing because it is not profitable to build or renovate existing housing stock in the suburb for the greater proportion under the affordable market segment. According to recent statistics, the average selling price of properties in the Cape Town City Bowl and surrounds, ranges between R3 million and R16 million (http://www.property24. com/articles/can-you-afford-property-in-cape-town-citybowl/22941, 2016). Woodstock appears to be one of the few if not only suburbs that provides a viable alternative to households wanting to live in Cape Town City bowl and surrounds. Over the past few years, property values have increased by 40% to 60% and apartments in the lower section of the suburb start at around R700 000. Therefore the growth in investment potential for the area poses potential risks of market led displacement, something that essentially hampers current government plans to create inclusive neighbourhoods for all. The continuing rise in real estate prices is making homeownership increasingly difficult for even young middle class professionals, but their problems pale in comparison with those faced by urban vulnerable groups (informal dwellers) residing in various sections of the suburb.

Left: heritage buildings in Gympie Street, Woodstock

The City of Cape Town Built Environment Performance Plan (BEPP), a compulsory plan submitted to the National Treasury annually indicating how the city intends to align and expend national grants related to infrastructure to address 11

specific national and local policy objectives, currently indicates that business and financial sector workers continue to shift towards spatial concentration and intensification in three nodes, of which Woodstock is a node. In terms of rail modernisation, BEPP highlights Woodstock station as among the current programme and projects of PRASA under the National Station Precinct Development Programme. The programme scope of work for Woodstock station precinct is to develop commercial opportunities at station locations particularly on PRASA property. The City of Cape Town has also implemented MyCiTi bus rapid transit service in phases and Woodstock is one of the suburbs that has a MyCiTi route. In terms of the urban renewal problem zones and linked land solutions highlighted in BEPP, the Woodstock Hospital site was recognised as having potential to offer new development opportunities. However, given the complex layers of local politics in Cape Town, neoliberal urban planning ideologies and the fact that the urban land prices are high in Cape Town, it is unclear how some of the strategic focus areas of the city will be achieved. Perhaps a new approach to urban redevelopment, one that would fuse public and private resources in dynamic partnership, will make a positive impact.

REIMAGINING REGENERATION THROUGH PARTICIPATORY DESIGN It is now widely acknowledged that gentrification is a global force, linked to globalised capital investments which manifests in different ways, depending on the local context and urban form.

However, there has now been a shift from the middle classes upgrading houses in formerly ‘run-down’ areas of the city to a comprehensive class-inflected urban remake. These new landscape complexes now integrate housing with shopping, restaurants, cultural facilities, open spaces and employment opportunities.’ (Smith, 2002: 443) Urban change, including regeneration of dilapidated buildings and infrastructure, as well as shifting economies and demographics is in many ways viewed an unstoppable force, in particular in such a well located area as Woodstock, with all of the attractions of traditional and industrial architecture, a multicultural heritage and a diversifying, creative economy. In its 12

current manifestation, this trend is in danger of leading to the eradication of working class communities that have historically lived there, and in turn to the livelihoods which have largely defined the area, with investors profiting directly from the rich cultural diversity that has shaped the neighbourhood.

Recognition of the lack of adequate housing that is affordable to the majority of citizens, in particular for the most marginalised, as well as their immediate vulnerabilities as a result of this, is the first step towards consolidating action going forward. The temptation for architects, and other built environment professionals, is often to seek technical solutions to the issue of constructing housing. Whilst intentions are generally well meant, issues around the lack of housing being built by both the public and private sector, are more complicated. This is especially prevalent in Cape Town, where ownership of land is highly contested and municipal government has a lack of capacity, and perhaps political will, to deliver social housing in the inner city. Recognition of the least well-off in society, and their right to access the economic and cultural opportunities that the city ought to offer to all of its inhabitants, is an issue that has been neglected. In many cases, the proposed solution has been to provide basic services at sites on the urban periphery, where land is less contested and opportunities for investment from the private sector are less obvious.

What has emerged is that a new approach to urban development and regeneration is critically needed, in which the most marginalised and ignored members of society are central to decision-making and structural transformation.

Participatory consultation of communities, as it has gradually become mainstreamed and part of conventional architectural and planning practices, runs the risk of being seen purely as a ‘tickbox’ exercise to encourage communities to become complicit with regeneration plans. A real intervention in the status quo looks to understand not only existing power structures, but also to: Build the capacity of those who are marginalised to engage with those in positions of power, as well 13

as to create secure and inclusive spaces where this can take place. The poor should not be seen solely as participants in the design and implementation of development activities, but also as partners and active agents of change within themselves. (Cage, 2012: 2) This process of consensus building is a gradual one, which requires engagement with various stakeholders and an evolving understanding of individual and common needs and aspirations. Development practitioner and architect, Nabeel Hamdi describes participatory processes as: The qualitative means of accessing and accumulating assets, tangible and intangible; ensuring strategic value to practical work; engaging community in communityled planning; capturing expert knowledge from those who do not normally have a voice in planning; making partnerships - all of which is central to good governance.

(Hamdi, 2014: 30) ASF-UK and DAG propose that it is this process, that of capacity and consensus building within the most vulnerable communities, through participatory design and planning approaches, could present a true alternative to the often latent and sometimes well publicised, regeneration processes which are forcing these very communities out of the city.

We propose that the action research-led approach developed through the evolving Change by Design methodology, presents an alternative for urban change which is inclusive and beneficial to those groups for which processes of regeneration tend to fundamentally exclude. In the following chapters we set out a process, which we recognise to have limitations given the short duration of the workshop, as a means to begin an exploration of how this democratic and inclusive change could be undertaken in the context of Woodstock and Cape Town as a whole.

14

Right: interviewing residents of Ilinge Abahlali Housing Cooperative (above) and Egoli, Philippi Horticultural Area (below)

15

CHANGE BY DESIGN 2015 The Change by Design (CbD) series of workshops and seminars is an evolving, action research-led methodology which examines socio-spatial urban dynamics and through participatory design and planning supports and advocates for more democratic forms of city making. In the first four installments of Change by Design, Salvador de BahĂ­a (2009, 2010), Nairobi (2011) and Quito (2013), the focus has been on approaches to informal settlement upgrading in cities of the global south. In 2014, the methodology was brought to the context of London, to the residents of an inner-city area under threat of displacement, due to top-down large scale infrastructure development.

Now in its sixth installment, the CbD workshop in Cape Town in 2015 unpacked the complexities of a city affected by neoliberal economic forces and a laissez-faire approach to development which has left thousands of citizens vulnerable to rapidly increasing rents, land pressures and a lack of access to basic services.

The stages of the ten-day workshop were designed to build on the expertise and experience of Development Action Group (DAG) as a community-led advocacy platform, as well as the shared learning generated by the Change by Design methodology in previous contexts. In each workshop the local context is analysed at fours scales: Policy and Planning, City, Community, and Dwelling. Each of these scales examines a specific set of issues relative to the bigger picture. Policy and Planning looks at the institutional framework of legislation, key stakeholders in government, private sector actors and larger patterns of migration and employment which shape development at all levels. The City scale looks to link the governing policies and planning frameworks across the urban realm to examine how specific community groups interact with the city and the extent to which they feel able to exercise their rights as citizens - both in accessing services and having their voice heard at the municipal level. The Community scale is focused on a neighbourhood and the amenities which define the inhabitation of a place. Public spaces shape social dynamics and organisational potential of groups, as well the perception 16

of access to these shared spaces defines control and use. The Dwelling scale is concerned with the individual household and its immediate surroundings. Through zooming in on the individual experience of the city, we aim to uncover their relative feelings of tenure security, social support and aspirations.

Across these four scales, there are distinct phases that shape the engagement; diagnosis, dreaming, developing and defining.

The first of these is the diagnosis, in which the complexities of the pressures which shape development in the city are unpacked, whilst looking towards potential room for manoeuvre, across the various levels of power. Dreaming follows this phase as a means to consolidate individual and community voices through common aspirations. Developing brings together the outcomes from the first two phases in order to move towards the formal defining phase of mechanisms for consolidation and concrete actions.

To begin the diagnosis phase, an urban symposium held at the DAG cafe on the first day of the workshop provided the opportunity to bring leading scholars and practitioners together to situate the particular dynamics of Woodstock, and Cape Town as a whole, within the context of post-colonial planning, housing mechanisms and social exclusion.

The following day, the ‘city visit’ put these findings into the context of the concentration of resources and infrastructure in the Central Business District, the older industrial areas of Observatory and Woodstock and to the urban peripheral settlements of Khayelitsha, Blikkiesdorp and Milnerton.

The Policy and Planning group researched and analysed the significance and inter-relativity of numbers, various stakeholder groups and policy at a neighbourhood, municipal and city wide level. The second level of analysis was to connect the plans and policy as they stand, compared with how these were coordinated into action, and ways forward. They uncovered a range of attitudes to affordable housing in Woodstock and the interplay between public and state responsibility in generating new housing mechanisms.

The Dwelling group focussed on specific vulnerable sites in 17

Woodstock, which were identified by DAG for their pertinence within the access to low-cost inner-city housing debates and as potential focus areas for the Re-imagining Woodstock programme. Through interviewing and mapping of specific issues, namely spatial use, daily life, tenure arrangements and networks of support, the group were able to find commonalities in the struggles faced by various residents. Following this diagnosis phase, residents were asked to dream of their ideal home through model making.

The Community group examined Trafalgar Park, a public space in Woodstock rife with issues surrounding security, access and privatisation, which in many ways could be seen as a reflection of the larger scale struggles of enacting a pro-poor approach in the city and the lack of organised lobby groups and strategic plans to protect such spaces. The tools used by the group in the diagnosis phase were transect walks, exploring through models, timelines and ‘My-community’ surveys, as well as interviews with key civil society groups and individuals. The dreaming phase involved asking residents of Woodstock and the wider city for their imaginations and aspirations for the park, through examining Images of My Park and Priorities Toolkit.

The City group examined four settlements on the urban periphery, many of which had been formed as a way in which to house the many displaced urban poor. Through a series of transects walks, interviews and mapping exercises, the group built a better understanding of the extent to which communities in Cape Town are organised, their relative connectivity to the services of the city and their general living conditions. Together, these built a picture of comparative resilience to change and insecurity between the four sites and Woodstock. The group brought together representatives from the four settlements at the DAG cafe to share common struggles and aspirations, in the dreaming phase of the workshop.

Following the initial two phases of the workshop, the groups separately consolidated their findings from the diagnosis and dreaming stages to form principles to guide action going forward, which is part of the developing phase of the methodology. These were then presented to the other groups, and an overall set of 18

seven principles were agreed and refined to support discussions regarding options for collective action going forward.

The final day of the workshop was held at the DAG cafe, with the purpose of presenting the findings of the workshop, in the context of the ongoing work of DAG and ASF-UK, and to define concrete ways forward. This was well attended by a wide variety of citizens, stakeholders, including Community Forums, NGOs, Environmental and Human Settlement departments, research bodies and urban practitioners who in groups discussed the range of issues that were faced in the context of urban change, often highlighting aspects which we had not adequately examined in the limited time of the workshop. This dialogue is something the partners of the workshop are looking to take forward in the following periods of engagement and preluded suggestions for ways forward, which ranged from short term organisational strategies, to medium and longer term potential room for manoeuvre, engaging municipal and city government and the private sector, alongside community-led advocacy and NGOs such as DAG and ASF-UK.

19

METHODOLOGY DIAGRAM

CHANGE BY DESIGN

CAPE TOWN 2015

diagnosing

dreaming

Analysis of policies and plans Stakeholder engagement

dwelling

Walking and talking Dreaming through drawing: Mapping

community

Interviews

How is public space used?

Decision making : public space

Transect walks, exploring through models, timelines

Imaginations and aspirations

Community mobilisation city

CITY VISIT: District Six, Ilinge Abahlali Housing Coorperative site visit, Khayelitsha, Blikkiesdorp, Milnerton

SYMPOSIUM: Change by Design Development Action Group

Cross-cutting themes: The Right to the City, The Right to Adequate Housing

policy & planning

Understanding city dynamics

Dwelling stories/ trajectories Living conditions

defining

developing

Key gaps and indentifying room for maneouvre

Spatial use Daily life Tenure

Mapping community structures/ Dreaming through modelling

Networks

Collaboration across groups

Participatory action planning event:

Findings of the fieldwork

Principles for inclusive regeneration

AGREED COMMUNAL ‘QUICK WINS’

PRELIMINARY ACTION PLAN

Residents’ stories Images from my park, priorities toolkit

Woodstock & City profile

Common aspirations

CHANGE BY DESIGN FINAL REPORT

22

Top row from left: presentations in the DAG cafe; Pine Road in Woodstock,;Bo Kaap; consulations at the DAG cafe Middle row from left: Dwelling group aspirations exercises; new developments in Woodstock; Freedom Park; final day of the workshop Bottom row from left: Kensington; Pine Road

23

Policy and Planning

The Policy and Planning group focused on (i) the broader enabling environment relating to inclusive regeneration and affordable housing, specifically the policy, legal and regulatory framework stakeholders, and (ii) spatial planning. The aim was to unpack the urban dynamics of regeneration in Cape Town and Woodstock and to highlight the complexity of such processes with a view to identifying options for achieving more inclusive regeneration and access to affordable housing in inner-city areas. The primary methodological tools included a combination of interviews, focus groups, literature and document reviews and field visits.

The structure of this chapter reflects the group’s three (overlapping) lines of inquiry, with findings from each presented: 1) Urban dynamics at national, city and Woodstock levels; 2) Development frameworks, including policies and spatial plans; and 3) People, including mapping stakeholders, power, participation and relationships. The chapter ends with key principles and a conclusion that summarises the overall findings and identifies potential ways forward for more inclusive housing and urban development in Woodstock.

Right: Ilinge Abahlali Housing Cooperative

1 / Introduction

Since 1994 South Africa has undergone a rapid and sustained urbanisation process that has led to the continued growth of cities, especially the largest ones such as Cape Town. This has created enormous pressure on urban land and access to adequate housing, particularly for low- and middle-income households.

Unfortunately the urbanisation shift has been accompanied with sustained levels of inequality and insufficient progress on reducing poverty. South Africa remains one of the most unequal societies in the world with a Gini coefficient of 65.1 Considerable efforts have been made over the past decades to address poverty and inequality, yet given the scale of the challenge efforts have focused largely on delivering quantitative housing solutions, which have led to the State delivering an estimated 80% of new housing supply.

The most visible manifestation of this is the ‘cookie-cutter’ Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) housing with millions of low-cost units delivered to date across the country on the periphery of cities.

progressive realisation of this right’.

However, the international definition of ‘adequate’2 is more than four walls and a roof, something that the RDP-approach to housing does not sufficiently take into account. Adequacy is defined by seven criteria (location, tenure security, durability, overcrowding, cultural suitability, water, sanitation) and, taken together, set a much more comprehensive and nuanced view of housing more akin to ‘dwelling’ (see Dwelling Chapter).

The national urban landscape, therefore, has been characterised by sprawling urban peripheries with the supply of low-cost housing units, limited connection to job opportunities and amenities, and continued exclusivity of inner-city areas, thus reinforcing the apartheid and colonial urban form.

Therefore, the main urban challenge facing South Africa is how to shift from a focus on quantitative housing supply to inclusive human settlements.

The right to adequate housing is enshrined in the Constitution of South Africa in Article 2.26: ‘(1) Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing; (2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the

In few places are these challenges more acute than in the city of Cape Town. The city is reinventing itself and witnessing enormous pressure in terms of urban regeneration with the explicit pursuit of enhancing economic growth, global competitiveness and cementing its status as a ‘world class city’ - all narratives that are interlinked with ‘picture-postcard’ images of the beautiful Table Mountain,

1 GINI coefficient is a measure of inequality, (0=equal, 100=unequal). For more info see the World Bank data) http://data.worldbank. org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI

2 For more information on the Right to Adequate Housing, see: http://www.ohchr. org/EN/Issues/Housing/toolkit/Pages/ RighttoAdequateHousingToolkit.aspx

26

wineries, and remarkable natural setting.

This is one face of Cape Town.

As the City Chapter examines, the other face, which is much larger, sees thousands of Capetonians living in fragile and overcrowded houses, including backyard shacks, with little tenure security, and poor mobility and accessibility to livelihoods and amenities, on the periphery of the city (the Cape Flats). These conditions are the urban outcome of inequality and insufficient or

ineffective policies and spatial planning frameworks to redress the exclusionary urban development practices that reinforce and perpetuate socio-spatial segregation.

Below: District Six museum Following pages: images of Woodstock and changes in economic activites, architecture and public space

27

2 / Woodstock in-depth

As the introduction explained, the innercity neighbourhood of Woodstock is a microcosm of the national- and city-level urban regeneration dynamics.

This is 40% of entire Woodstock land area, which is highly underused as the rail yard needs much less clearance area than in the past.

Woodstock is located in the Table Bay District, bridging the Central Business District (CBD) and the Salt River and Observatory neighbourhoods which form a transport corridor connecting the CBD with the Cape Flats and surrounding areas.

Although the administrative boundaries of Woodstock are clear, most people and organisations have very different psycho-social perceptions and understandings of Woodstock’s boundaries. Woodstock is regularly seen as having only two parts: Lower Woodstock (the area between Albert and Victoria Roads) and Upper Woodstock (between Victoria Road and the motorway). Walmer Estate and University Estate are both higher-income residential areas that are included in Woodstock in the official zoning and census, but seen as distinct given their different socioeconomic profile and physical separation (higher elevation and separated due to the motorway).

Census data reveals that in 2011 the overall population of Woodstock was 12,656 people, comprising 3,660 households (average household size 3.46 people). The socio-economic profile shows that Woodstock is a comparatively more socio-economically diverse neighbourhood than the CBD and other inner-city neighbourhoods: (i) the ethnic composition includes: Black 24%, White 14%, Coloured 50%, Asian 5%, and Others 6%; (ii) 28% of households are below the poverty line in Woodstock (50% on city level) and 10% of households report no income (14% on city level); and (iii) 72% of the population in Woodstock is educated; while only 30% has a grade higher than grade 12. (City of Cape Town, 2011) The built form of Woodstock is characterised as mostly low-rise residential, apart from either side of the main transport corridors (Albert Road and Victoria Road) where commercial and mixed-use dominates. Nearly half of Woodstock’s land area is for railroads transportation (Transnet-owned land, 118 hectares from a total of 293 hectares).

Overall, from the interviews and document reviews, it seems that these competing and conflicting views about ‘where exactly is Woodstock’ do in fact contribute to a lack of a comprehensive vision for an entire district development, as well as lead to fragmented stakeholder groups and limited cooperation.

Right: Census data on Woodstock, adapted from a document produced by DAG

Monthly Household Income

Tenure Status

6.6% 25.8%

25.6%

45.0%

OWNED + FULLY PAID OFF

14.0%

R 25,601 - R 51,200

20.0%

R 12,801 - R 25,600

17.4%

R 6,401 - R 12,800

13.6%

R 3,201 - R 6,400

9.1%

R 1,601 - R 3,200

9.4%

R 1 - R 1,600

9.9%

NO INCOME

OWNED BUT NOT FULLY PAID OFF

RENTED

2.3% 1.2%

1.1%

OVER R 51,201

OCCUPIED RENT-FREE OTHER

live in an INFORMAL DWELLING or a BACKYARD SHACK

28.4% OF THE POPULATION EARN LESS THAN R 3 200

3 / Policies and Plans

The main finding from examination of the policy and planning sphere is that there is no shortage of well-intentioned policies, plans, and programmes, at national, provincial and city levels.

Planning documents set laudable visions of ‘integrated development’, ‘sustainable development’, ‘compact development’, that can ‘break the apartheid city’. However the two main challenges seem to be with the implementation and coordination of spatial development plans with other sectoral instruments and tools, especially those in the housing sector.

that over the past five years there has been a plethora of planning documents produced, where ‘a lot of thinking went on to develop these and now the task is implementation of projects’. The two key city-level plans are the 20-year Cape Town Spatial Development Framework and the 5-year Integrated Development Plan (with associated District Plans).

The dominant public-sector approach to achieving the vision involves interventions in three areas:

To build an inclusive, integrated, and vibrant city that addresses the legacies of apartheid by rectifying the existing imbalances in the distribution of different types of residential development... Proactive support of publicly-led land reform and new housing delivery is to be achieved through the identification of land and publicly-led housing delivery programmes.

•

Transit Orientated Development (TOD), including growth corridors, to guide investment, manage urbanisation in an orderly manner, increase densities, and improve city mobility and connectivity;

•

Focusing public investments in certain areas to have a catalytic role and give confidence to the market/private sector to invest.

Converging public investments across government departments (for efficiency through coordination and achieving greater impact);

•

Evidenced-based planning to ensure investments will reap rewards and to track progress and impacts.

The City of Cape Town acknowledges 32

The Cape Town Spatial Development Framework (CTSDF, 2012) is an overarching framework for the entire Cape Town metropolitan region for the next 20 years.

The laudable intention is:

Woodstock is located within the Table Bay District. The 10-year District Development plan is divided up into sub-District plans, and Woodstock falls within Sub-District 2. The District plans are intended as medium term plans (+/- 10 years) that will guide spatial development processes within districts. With regard to housing and densification, the Table Bay District Plan a set of five principles around new opportunities for publicly assisted

Above: Urban Development Zones in Woodstock from City of Cape Town

housing: •

Contain urban sprawl and protect the urban edge;

•

Facilitate urban integration and promote the establishment of viable communities;

•

Facilitate a range of housing options and delivery approaches

•

Be suited development;

•

Take the beneficiaries’ economic and social well-being into account.

to

housing

The document states: The intention is that those sites that are found developable should be pursued as new public housing projects or if not feasible for development by the public sector alone, should be the subject of partnership efforts where the provision of inclusionary housing should be a priority. (CitySpace, 2012: 104) Urban Development Zones (UDZs) were introduced in 2003 as a fiscal tool to revitalise inner-city areas and promote

investment in property development in strategic areas. Two main UDZs were established, essentially delineated as the CBD area and two transport corridors out of the city, both of which branch off from Woodstock. The UDZ is a tax incentive that enables property owners to claim a tax rebate on property improvements.

While exact figures are not available, from our interviews the general consensus is that UDZs have prompted considerable investment in property development in these areas, which have had ‘knock-on’ effects in terms of gentrification from rising property prices.

In principle, UDZs are favourable.

However, their major flaw is that they do not consider housing (housing supply, the effects on housing prices, rental rates, availability, etc.). It is possible to see how inclusionary housing could have been incorporated into the UDZs as a mechanism to promote not only investment in property upgrading (mostly commercial property to date) but also to stimulate the private sector to address housing demand from different socioeconomic segments of the population.

This would have gone some way toward meeting the goals of the spatial 33

Above: Activites of the Policy and Planning group

development plans (mentioned above) for increasing densities, facilitating urban integration, and facilitating a range of housing options and delivery approaches, etc.

As mentioned above, the housing sphere is characterised by peri-urban, low-cost, mass-produced housing supply.

The City of Cape Town continues to reduce its rental stock as this is ‘proving too difficult to manage’. While there are precedents for well-located affordable housing schemes, for example the projects of Steenvillas and Dromedaris1, these are the exceptions and not the norm, and they do not reach to the bottom of the ‘housing ladder’ but rather those with incomes above R3,500/month.

Real opportunities for affordable housing in Woodstock do exist, yet the available housing instruments are not sufficiently tailored to such inner-city locations; as one interviewee noted: ‘there is a thin line of possibility’. The key finding with housing is that there are a range of housing instruments available, however given that the subsidy brackets have not 1 For more info on these projects, see: https://www.capetown.gov.za/en/Housing/ Socialhtest/Pages/Projects.aspx

34

Right: Affordable Housing Options (source: DAG)

been modified in over seven years, these are out of line with the current economic feasibility/realities for inner-city locations.

Furthermore, limited housing assistance is available for residents residing in informal shelters as well as foreign nationals2, which anecdotal evidence suggests are increasing in Woodstock.

While pockets of land have been identified and earmarked for social housing in Woodstock, limited progress has been made in realising the projects.

This is partly due to lack of political will and poor coordination between Provincial and Municipal government tiers. The former owns many of the sites in Woodstock, the largest of which is the Hospital site, and the latter in principle is more open to unlocking this for affordable housing development. The intention to involve the private sector dominates policy and the discourse, yet there is both an aversion for regulation to achieve more equitable outcomes, and a lack of incentives - fiscal or otherwise - to stimulate the private sector to provide or support affordable housing.

2 A term commonly used to describe migrants from neighbouring countries.

HOUSING BANDS

Instrument

Amount

Description

Density (du/ha)

BNG (breaking new ground) Housing

Under R3 500 per month.

Fully subsidised housing unit of minimum 40sqm.

Low to medium

Social Housing

R1500 to R7500 per month

Social Housing units managed by a Social Housing Institution

Medium to high

Upgrading Informal Settlements (UISP)

All

Incremental upgrading of an existing informal settlement.

Medium

Community Residential Unit (CRU)

R1500 to R3500 per month

Public rental housing managed by the local authority

Medium

Extended People’s Housing Process (e-PHP)

Under R3500 per month

Fully subsidised housing unit of minimum 40sqm.

Low to medium

Emergency Housing

Under R3500 per month

Site and serviced plot with temporary unit of 23sqm

Low to medium

FLISP

R3500 - R15000 per month

Bonded housing for affordable gap housing market

Low, medium to high

Affordable Gap Market Housing

R12500 to R20000

Ownership

Varies

Mortgage Financed Housing

Over R12500 per month as set by the banks

First time buyers etc

Low, medium to high

Private housing

Varies

State subsidised housing:

35

POLICY & PLANNING MICROSTORY The reality check Mr Hancock*, CoCT *Names have been changed to protect identities

Woodstock is seen as part of the Table Bay area with the potential of becoming part of the high quality urban centre of the city. Land values in Woodstock have tripled in the last 15 years.

Mr Hancock states, ‘We want to plan so that people don’t need their cars; in Woodstock parking is a major issue. To keep the area attractive for private developers we need parking lots. We can reduce parking standards, but they will build them anyway. We also have to think about student housing in the area. Woodstock is one of the most expensive areas in South Africa, therefore implementing social housing is basically impossible. We focus on the economy of scale, let’s be realistic.’

POLICY & PLANNING MICROSTORY Get active in your neighbourhood Community Fora The objectives of the Woodstock Community Outreach Forum (WCOF) are to improve institutional infrastructure and capacity, alleviate social problems and improve general public well being. The WCOF has a good working relationship with the police in the struggle against ‘drug houses’ and ‘rouge liquor’ establishments.

The community want these to be shut down, and are challenging the landlords who own the buildings. The WCOF members have been trained by a local welfare organisation as community supporters for social workers dedicated to the children of Woodstock and Salt River area.

The Upper Woodstock Residents’ Association aims to promote and safeguard the interests of the community of Upper Woodstock, secure the Upper Woodstock area against crime and enhance the appearance of the area. This is considered the most affluent area of Woodstock, with the housing market dominated by semi-detached houses.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’ OFFICIAL POLICIES AND PLANS VS REALITY

Complex, jargonladen, inaccessible and disjointed participation mechanisms for citizen engagement

HOUSING

Housing for all

Housing tools and instruments reinforce sociospatial inequality; focus on quantity of units, not quality, without consideration of ‘dwelling’ aspects

Plethora of plans, programmes and development frameworks give an image of effective and coordinated development intervention

POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE

lack of political will to engage in (shaping) the market for propoor outcomes

“Making progress possible. Together”

PARTICIPATION

LAND

“Inner city land is too expensive for social housing” State has land in Woodstock and Salt River, but land and buildings are too expensive for them to purchase

Competition between different tiers of government, poorly aligned plans, limited implementation and monitoring of impacts. Short term opportunism linked to political terms

4 / Stakeholder Analysis

The stakeholder environment of Cape Town and Woodstock is characterised by strong and well-organised higher-income groups, as well as the business community, and a number of lower-income household groups who, in general, lack a critical mass to engage with authorities and press for a more inclusive regeneration of Woodstock.

This could be partly attributed to the fragmented administrative boundaries and understandings of what constitutes the Woodstock neighbourhood, as previously discussed above. For example, Woodstock sits across three wards, meaning it has three Ward Councillors.

Likewise, the ‘Upper Woodstock Residents’ Association’ serves only a portion of the total Woodstock land area. There is almost no shared sense of community for the Woodstock area as a whole. Interventions and mobilisation efforts are disjointed and cater only to particular groups and interests.

A dominant force in the regeneration of Woodstock is the Woodstock Improvement District (WID). It was created in 2005, in line with a citywide policy to create ‘City Improvement Districts’ (CIDs) as a mechanism to reinvigorate inner-city areas and promote investment, usually aligned to the UDZs. CIDs are operated as Section 21 companies and offer ‘top-up’ services. The WID has a security division and a cleaning division, focusing on patrolling business districts and removing litter and illegally dumped refuse. CIDs are funded through an additional levy 38

which is charged to businesses in the improvement zone.

Another force shaping the economic growth of inner-city Cape Town is the Cape Town Partnership which is a publicly supported non-profit organisation established in 1999 that aims to regenerate inner-city Cape Town. It’s focus has traditionally been on economic development, similar to CIDs, reflecting its founding mandate and interests (it was founded by the City of Cape Town, the South African Property Owners Association, and the Cape Town Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry).

It has recently expanded its focus on people-centred city building yet some stakeholders interviewed expressed concern regarding the role of the partnership in meaningfully challenging the status quo and dominant market-led approach to urban redevelopment.

These two organisations embody a core tension regarding the stakeholders involved at city and Woodstock levels.

They reflect powerful alliances between the city authorities (political as well as administrative/executive) and the private sector and property owners. Critiques of this approach include questions around: (i) if they are providing ‘top-up’ services only, or are in fact substituting core functions of the state; (ii) if they are working in the best interests of all city residents (the evidence for the CIDs suggests this is not the case); and (iii) the limited opportunities for citizens and marginalised groups to engage with these organisations, which

is particularly problematic as they have effectively become de-facto extensions of the state at the local level.

The clear finding is that there is simply no adequate platform for a wide range of stakeholders to engage collectively in shaping urban development. The WID is largely inaccessible to Woodstock residents (but not property owners who pay their top-up rates). Ward Councilors and Ward Committees are accessible but their power and authority to enact real change is limited and painfully slow. Empowerment of local community members to be able to engage with policy structures and become active citizens in the regeneration process of Woodstock is long overdue.

Key civil society actors include the Woodstock Community Outreach Forum (WCOF), which focuses on community empowerment, conflict resolution, and fostering channels for dialogue between the residents and business.

The Woodstock Community Police Forum consists of organisations such as schools, ratepayers associations, civic organisations, businesses, and religious institutions working in partnership with the local police. The purpose is to create and maintain a safe and secure environment.

The Woodstock Housing Assembly aims to increase access to adequate housing and eliminate the gentrification process in Woodstock by challenging the marketled ideology that underpins it. The Upper Woodstock Residents Association works to beautify and create a safe environment

in the area between Victoria Road and the motorway.

Unfortunately, the stakeholder environment of community-based organisations and nonprofit stakeholders (e.g. NGOs, social housing providers) in Cape Town is characterised by competition, deep mistrust, and politically-loaded prejudices that severely limit collective civil-society action. All organisations have different agendas, approaches, and capacities which lead to lack of collaboration and perceived and/or real competition over potential projects, rewards, and recognition. A lack of leadership was often cited as a major bottleneck to bringing people together to advance a more inclusive Woodstock.

Following page: interviews conducted with a variety of stakeholders

39

“We try to negotiate plans with developers for a better and more dense inner-city, but we have little power because they have existing development rights.” - City Official in Spatial Planning Unit

“Some areas of the city are improving.

Some people call this gentrification. Woodstock is improving” -City Leader

“The State is phobic of informality, but looking at Woodstock, one sees that informality is a vital part of what continues to make the area sustainable for a lot of people.

Informality isn’t necessarily a bad thing.” - Researcher and urbanist

“The question is not how to make Woodstock inclusive, it is how to keep it inclusive” - NGO worker

“There’s simply a lack of political will to meaningfully break-up the apartheid city geography” - Housing rights lawyer

5 / Common Ways Forward

The overarching vision stemming from the Policy and Planning group’s research and fieldwork, is to implement the urban policies, plans and instruments in a more inclusive manner to increase socio-spatially equitable outcomes for all segments of society, especially low income and ethnically excluded men and women. An increase in socio-spatial equity is envisioned through a collaborative framework, one that recognises and respects diversity, and through providing opportunities for equal participation.

within the current legal and regulatory framework. However, this will not happen unless there are champions who seek to make Woodstock a model and showcase what can be achieved.

Essential to enhancing the voice of the current residents and those who are not currently engaged in the development of Woodstock is an organised community with a common vision. More integrated networks between different partners of the community and improved collaboration between residents and the state are essential, alongside building the resilience of community organisations.

Any future development should promote a range of housing opportunities; a range of housing options can, and need, to be provided in Woodstock. This has been a key feature of its past and the reason for its vibrancy. A range of housing forms and tenure should be provided in an effort to retain the diversity and mix that makes Woodstock what it is.

The current model of development excludes many of the Woodstock residents who do not benefit from the economic growth of the area. Through fostering inclusive economic development, this sees the residents taking a greater role in the economic sphere and ensuring that the benefits of Woodstock’s economic growth are shared in a more equitable fashion, including in terms of jobs and livelihoods and housing affordability.

Woodstock has the potential to be a model for inclusive inner-city regeneration. The Policy and Planning group findings show that this is possible 42

The challenge is not only a planning or design challenge; it is largely a social development challenge. Any development in Woodstock should also be assessed in terms of its impact on socio-spatial equity and the way it engages in advancing social development of all residents.

Any improvements to Woodstock must be people-centred. The planning frameworks support this, but these need to be upheld and implemented in their vision by the State, not simply left to the private sector, ensuring quality urban spaces are built and maintained.

Above: A resident of Gympie Street, Woodstock, indicates changes to his neighbourhood

43

6 / Policy and Planning Principles

Organised community with a common vision

Fostering inclusive economic impact

Creating a model for equitable urban development

Engaging in social development

Promoting a range of housing opportunities

Quality urban spaces

7 / Conclusion

Overall, drawing from the interviews, reviews of policies and plans, analysis of urban dynamics, and mapping of stakeholders and their relations, the group uncovered a story about Cape Town and Woodstock that runs counter to the prevailing narrative and dominant discourse on the city’s development.

The story is underpinned by the dynamics of unchecked gentrification and the commodification of urban space.

Gentrification of inner-city Cape Town is visibly apparent yet it is ‘unchecked’, in that the dominant discourse posits this as a positive and allegedly inevitable outcome of economic development.

Below the surface of Cape Town and Woodstock are significant structural problems that severely limit access to adequate, affordable housing; violate the right to the city for all; and further reinforce apartheid-period spatial relations and power dynamics. This contrasts the dominant discourse of South Africa and Cape Town as a vibrant, progressive and inclusive modern democracy. Contrary to glossy tourist brochures and official city plans and publications, Cape Town remains a spatially ‘divided city’. Racial segregation of the apartheid era has been implicitly replaced by socio-economic segregation due to market forces of the neo-liberal city, with the inner city areas home to the rich and peri-urban space for the poorer and economically excluded. This arrangement of space and structuring of urban form also reflects the colonial city and taken together, this 46

layering of history shows the structural dynamics around the distorted power relations and associated use of design and space are main constants over the past century, even if their specific design manifestations vary.

The current planning and housing fiscal tools and instruments are not sufficiently tailored to enable financiallyviable, smaller projects in inner-city locations, particularly due to the high market value of land and the current housing subsidy framework, which has not been updated for many years, and is largely structured for peri-urban mass housing. These technical problems, however, are too often cited as the ‘deal breakers’, yet they are not. The reality is that there is a lack of national-, provincial-, and city-level political will to intervene in the market to achieve more inclusive and equitable outcomes. A serious redesign of housing instruments is needed if they are to be viable in inner-city locations.

Dwelling

The Dwelling group focused on specific experiences of individual inhabitation, exploring a notion of housing which goes beyond built form: the notion of housing the group favours is one which additionally includes: daily routine, support networks, spatial layout and use, private- and semi-private space, thresholds, tenure arrangement, and service provision.

Through a process of participatory exploration of housing typologies and arrangements, residents’ needs, dreams, and aspirations around home-making and the activities that compose this were brought forward. The diversity of experience was uncovered and used to form a dialogue around relative feelings of security and how this relates to the wider neighbourhood. By comparing experiences across four sites in which conditions of dwelling are unpacked, this allows links to be drawn to wider urban policy challenges and recognition of these groups at a municipal level.

Through bringing together the aspirations of this multiplicity of inhabitants, a set of dwelling principles are defined through a consensus building process that unites a shared vision and forms the basis of consolidating ways forward.

Right: interviews with Bromwell Street residents

WOODSTOCK SITES

1 / Introduction

The drivers and experience of displacement in Woodstock are multifaceted, generating a complex and conflictive urban scenario embedded in wider city-wide processes. The existing documentation of these processes has shown how the increasing prices of property and rent have resulted in the displacement of local residents to peripheral areas of Cape Town ( Flemming, 2011). According to DAG’s research on this, property prices have tripled since 2004. Residents displaced by state-led initiatives or those who end up homeless due to increased rental prices fall under the city’s Emergency Housing Plan, which relocates them to sites 24 to 30 km away from Woodstock, which includes Symphony Way Temporary Relocation Area (colloquially known as Blikkesdorp – or ‘tin town’ in Afrikaans), Wolwerivier or Pelican Park (DAG, 2013).

Due to this on-going change and complexity of forces operating in the area, there is gap in the existing body of knowledge about Woodstock concerning the detailed understanding of how these processes are playing out locally, and how they are affecting people’s housing experiences. With the objectives of addressing this gap and identifying entry points for productive engagement that can offer opportunities for low-income groups to remain in Woodstock, the Dwelling group examined different contexts where residents have been experiencing the pressures of displacement in the area. The focus of activities were on 52

dwelling aspirations and practices, which integorrated personal and collective home-making experiences in Woodstock.

The focus on Dwelling allowed the group to understand housing not merely as a physical structure confined by the boundaries of houses, but rather as a system of settings, based on relationships and various activities shaping residents’ activities associated to their view of what home is. Therefore, this group carried out a series of participatory design activities in Woodstock addressing the aspirations people associate to their dwelling; identifying the various activities and routines created to achieve these aspirations; and revealing the conditions and processes shaping those aspirations and practices.

Based on the preliminary engagements with Woodstock residents and stakeholders, DAG identified four particular sites within Woodstock that could present different conditions of pressures of displacement on lowincome residents and where the ASFUK workshop could focus its dwelling activities: Bromwell Street, Pine Road, Gympie Street, and Springfield Terrace.

In the case of Bromwell street, residents are recent occupiers of a state owned site that used to be horse stables; for the settlement in Pine Road, shack dwellers are longer term occupiers with a negotiated agreement with the the City of Cape Town authorities to identify a housing solution within or in proximity to Woodstock; in Gympie Street, tenants are being

displaced by property owners selling their land or redeveloping their properties to increase their rental revenues; in Springfield Terrace, a rapid increase of prices of levies by service providers are making flats unaffordable, pushing low income tenants and leaseholders out.

These sites illustrate different ways within which state and the market are relating to each other to produce conditions and threat of displacement. The sites illustrate how these forces of displacement operate through different tenure arrangements.

Below: interviews with Bromwell Street residents Following pages: the Dwelling group’s activites with residents of the four sites under threat in Woodstock

53

54

55

2 / Bromwell Street

The Bromwell Stables site consists of 19 horse stables that have been occupied by a mixed group of people. The land is owned by the City of Cape Town and residents have no formal tenure arrangement. The City of Cape Town currently has a pending court order to remove them from the site. Within the last 2 years the city has provided support in the form of access to piped water and chemical toilets. Meanwhile, the state has been intimidating new residents to the site through surveillance by a security guard who looks over it.

Residents of the Bromwell Stables have lived in the site for different lengths of time. While most have been there for roughly 3 years, its oldest resident has been there for 15 years. Each dwelling unit has been customised to the requirements of its resident, each of whom show much pride in the interior space, with all residents sharing a communal courtyard outside the stable units as a washing, working and leisure area.

Residents have various arrangements of cooperation and support amongst themselves, sharing various resources and services.

These relationships extend beyond the dwellings into the adjacent neighbourhood where certain residents share friendships and working relationships with the stable dwellers.

Nevertheless, not all neighbourhood residents share this view, some associating the Bromwell Stables residents as the reason for crime in the area.

Many residents of Bromwell Stables 56

struggle with prolonged hardship and extreme poverty. They receive support from various aid groups who provide social assistance to the residents of the Bromwell Stables, including SWEAT (Sex Workers Education Advocacy Taskforce) who provide counselling, education, and other health related services to residents.

These residents are extremely socially vulnerable and have very little means of responding to lack of opportunities in society. The threat of relocation to peripheral and isolated areas of the city is perceived by local residents as yet another challenge intensifying the severeness of their living conditions.

Many residents of the Bromwell Stables grew up in Woodstock, still rely on their social networks and local knowledge to get by in their tough daily life, and expressed very clearly that they do not want to leave the area. They share common aspirations around wanting tenure and safety, but are adamant about not being relocated outside the city.

Bromwell Stables, with all its limitations, is working as a refuge for an extremely vulnerable population that needs to remain living in inner city areas to secure livelihood opportunities, as well as to maintain fundamental social networks and support systems.

Meanwhile, the state, in this case, is the main agent threatening displacement and potentially reproducing social and spatial exclusionary practices.

Above: view of Bromwell Street ‘stables’

DWELLING MICROSTORY Refuge for the vulnerable Ian*

*Names have been changed to protect identities

Ian has lived in one of the ‘Bromwell Stables’ for 2.5 years and for 15 years in the wider Woodstock area. He has suffered a series of personal difficulties which have prevented him from finding a secure job.

In total there are 20 stables, 3 of which are empty. The community has shared toilets and water taps and there is no electricity. The rent of the dwellings and provision of water is free. The government does not remove solid waste, creating serious hygiene issues. Ian feels his current dwelling situation is under threat although so far planned developments on the site have not been carried out. In the eventuality that he is evicted, he would move to occupied sites by the railway as he does not wish to leave Woodstock.

57

3 / Pine Road

Pine Road runs perpendicular to Main Road (the M4) with the informal settlement located on the uphill, less than a 200 metres from this busy thoroughfare road that connects Cape Town CBD to the southern suburbs.

The residents of Pine Road share a small plot of sloped land where they live in 15 small ‘wendy’ houses (small prefabricated wooden houses) provided by a state official as a temporary housing solution during an election year. The site was handed to the City of Cape Town from the Provincial Department in 2009, who has not placed an eviction order on the settlement. The residents have a loose agreement to stay on the site, but the City has not indicated a clear position on how they will support the Pine Road residents. While not facing a direct threat of displacement, the current tenure arrangement is extremely fragile, without any official recognition of the rights of residents. The state is not being held to account on its promise to provide adequate housing solutions to local residents within the inner city area.

The residents are made up of mostly family units, some of whom have been there for as long as 17 years and have very strong social and work links to the area through various churches, mosques, and well located job opportunities based on the proximity to Main Road. Most residents interviewed grew up in and around District Six and rely heavily on the social networks of Woodstock and its adjacent areas.

58

There is a negative perception around the residents of Pine Road from their neighbours in regard to drugs and gangsterism, with the residents claiming that certain groups chose their space to conduct their illegal activities and create this stigma.

The settlement receives direct support from the local church and social groups, and the residents share an amiable bond, coming together in the face of emergencies (such as the wind damaging a house, causing it to collapse) or to rally for government support.

The residents on a whole are more secure in this site in comparison to the other Dwelling sites, with many having fairly steady work and being good candidates for national government housing (Reconstruction and Development Programme - RDP), but are against the nature of these schemes as they typically provide housing on badly located land on the city outskirts.

Above: view of Pine road dwellings

DWELLING MICROSTORY Disparity through disability Eva*

*names have identities

been

changed

to

protect

Eva grew up in her grandfather’s house in Pine Road. She suffers from epilepsy and owing to this is unable to work. She is a single parent of four children, two of which live with her. Eva has spent the majority of her life living in a shack, and was on the list to receive a wendy house from the government, which she did 12 years ago.

There are plans to convert the site of the wendy houses into a social housing development. This scheme is not targeted at those in Eva’s particular situation, rather those with a minimum income of R3200 - R6400. This means that those in the wendy house community are still waiting for a proposal for where their new housing will be situated, with the worry that they will be moved to the peripheral settlements of the city.

59

4 / Gympie Street

Gympie Street has a notorious association with extreme drug and gang violence to Cape Town locals, and has undergone a large ‘cleanup’ by the city and local developers over the last five years.

This stigma has overshadowed the history of local residents such as Mr. Suleiman Samuels, who grew up and raised his family here since the evictions of District Six. Residents such as Mr. Samuels have a deep connection to Woodstock and old District Six (Zonnebloem) and only know this area of Cape Town as home, with his extended family living within walking distance of him his entire life.

Many residents have owned their homes for decades and have watched their family and friends leave the area over the years, at first due to the increase of crime that plagued South Africa post1994 and now with the increasing demand for property in the area.

Amongst the last remaining long term residents of this neighbourhood is a newly vulnerable sector of Cape Town’s urbanisation seen in the African Foreign National population. They cannot access South African social welfare services and are forced to pay exorbitant rent to have access to well located schools and amenities in the area. These residents are seen, xenophobically, by many locals as the reason for the crime and danger in the area and have little support from local support groups or neighbours.

Due to the proximity of Gympie Street to Main Road (the M4), many 60

other inhabitants of Woodstock have found themselves taking temporary and vulnerable housing options from local residents or landlords who, under the pressure of the growing demand for retail and commercial space, are increasing the rent at an untenable rate. The pressure on this area comes from the large developers building in and around the area, raising property values and the financial demands on small business owners in the area.

Above: view of Gympie Street dwellings

DWELLING MICROSTORY Unexpected demolition Paul* *names have been changed to protect identities

Paul was born and raised at Gympie Street in one of the five terraced houses which had been built during the Industrial period, and lived there until 2005. He shared the dwelling with his disabled mother, father, and two sisters. Rent was paid regularly and the family undertook all necessary and desired renovations to the property themselves. Despite signing a tenancy contract, which stipulated a notice period prior to any eviction, the family was not given any prior notice to their having to leave the house. Demolition commenced whilst the tenants were sleeping in the house; the land had been sold to a developer to build a 9-storey apartment block in its place.

The event had terrible consequences for the family, with his mother unable to recover from the stress. Paul’s father and siblings moved to Delft (a settlement on the urban periphery of Cape Town), whilst Paul moved in with his eldest son in Page Street, close to Gympie Street, as he wanted to remain in Woodstock. A few months ago, they received notice that the land had been sold. Due to this struggle to find secure housing and continually changing neighbourhoods, Paul feels unsafe in the streets in which he has lived for his entire life.

61

5 / Springfield Terrace

The Springfield Terrace housing estate is located below a major feeder route into the City of Cape Town (The M3) and sits in good proximity to the city centre as well as major transport routes and retail opportunities.

Springfield Terrace was initiated as a public-private partnership pilot project in the early 1990’s to demonstrate the viability of medium density housing in well located areas of Cape Town. Units were offered under sectional title and subsidised by the government under strict income criteria.

Many of the residents of Springfield Terrace come from the surrounding area and since moving there have developed stronger connections to the immediate area through the schools, churches, mosques and proximity to the centre of Cape Town.

There are nine blocks in Springfield Terrace, each managed by either a body corporate comprised of the owners, or a managing agent. There are some blocks which are not well managed, with arrear accounts of up to R200 000, which is placing pressure on households. Since its completion the residents have united and organised amongst themselves in response to the poor management of the housing scheme, which has slowly deteriorated over the last two decades.

The residents currently face an increase in levies and many feel this is a tactic intended to push them out of the area and attract a more affluent clientele.

62

The good location and favourable tenure arrangement of the units make them an attractive investment opportunity. Some of the block of flats have seen water bills increase substantially in recent years.

Residents have the option to sell their units, but many fear they would be unable to purchase an equivalent dwelling in a central and well-connected area. During interviews the residents spoke of wanting more facilities such as playgrounds, yard spaces and better security for the area.

Above: view of Springfield Terrace

DWELLING MICROSTORY Ownership under threat Angela* *names have been changed to protect identities

Angela, her husband, daughter and nephew live in block E2, which includes 13 flats, 3 of which are rented. Angela is trained as a teacher but is currently unemployed. Angela has resided in Springfield Terrace for 18 years, and she used to live across the road as a tenant. Eight years ago she moved to block E2 as part of the ‘rent-to-buy’ scheme. Their final payment was made two months ago, meaning that now they only have to pay levies and tax.

However, since last month, the levies have been increased from R383 to R618, due to a change in the water supply rates, representing the first increase in eleven years.

Owing to the particular nature of ownership through a sectional title, they can still be evicted if they fail to pay those charges. Some of these owners have managed to sell their flat for R650 - R950, but this amount would not enable the purchase of a similar house in the area. If prices continue to rise as in other blocks, Angela says that they will have to sell the house and move. Angela’s body corporate is trying to unite with the managing agents and the council to discuss the increase in levies.

63

6 / Shared Aspirations

Following the initial four days of fieldwork, residents from the four sites were brought together at the DAG cafe to discuss individual and collective dwelling aspirations. The day comprised of a modelling exercise in which residents were asked to compose their ideal home in 3D in small groups. They were then asked to explain their reasoning behind choosing certain arrangements to understand these aspirations in greater detail.

The findings from these discussions shaped the dwelling principles outlined in the following section and are as follows: Participants emphasised the importance of not experiencing the threat of eviction and displacement. One of the participants articulated how she would be happy to rent or buy, as long as she knew she would be able to stay in her current place (Eva, Pine Road).

Affordability was articulated as a key component of securing tenure. One of the respondents included a small shop in her representation of an ideal home, which represented her aspiration to expand her tuck shop and thus generate enough income to cope with housing costs (Sue, Bromwell).

The ideal home was conceptualised 64

by participants as a place nurturing a subjective sense of well-being and peacefulness.

Thus serenity was articulated as the necessary infrastructure to allow one to cope emotionally with the challenges of everyday life. This was achieved through access to green spaces, places of worship, and facilities for exercise and walking. One of the participants articulated the need for private rooms as well as open space to allow for ‘alone time’. Others argued that serenity was encouraged by having access to community infrastructures, such as community centres, mosques, and churches (John, Gympie Street). Places for dog walking was also identified as a mechanism to support serenity. Access to gardens and parks were strongly valued by participants as key for their sense of serenity, one of them starting the design of her whole dream home with the garden (Sue, Bromwell Street). Safety was also articulated as a key aspect of serenity.

One of the participants articulated the need for a garden outside her house so that her daughter could socialise in a safe environment (Eva, Pine Road).

Reliable and affordable access to services was a key aspiration, and the participants from Pine Road settlement outlined the importance of a secure

electricity connection for safety reasons, avoiding the risk of fire, generating better visibility within the home, therefore allowing children to do homework at night. (Eva, Pine Road).

Access to educational opportunities was articulated by participants as one of their fundamental dwelling principles. In the dream home exercise, participants prioritised public facilities such as schools (Sue, Bromwell Street) and libraries, as well as inner house space for concentrating and studying. Apart from schools, one of the participants outlined the importance of access to spaces to play, where children can have access to more informal spaces of learning (John, Gympie Street). Participants discussed that educational opportunities should be fostered across generations, from the young to the elderly.

Participants argued how dwelling spaces can contribute to improve communication in the household and in neighbourhoods, thus fostering relationships of trust and collaboration.

For example, one of the participants prioritised a sitting room, which would allow families to eat together enabling learning and shared experiences in the home (Eva, Pine Road). Access to streets

as public spaces was articulated as a mechanism to generate community events supporting community bonds (John, Gympie Street). Also local shops and community facilities were associated as places of socialisation, such as a barber shop where one of the participants currently goes to meet friends.

Participants identified relationships of care and support as key resources to help them in coping with everyday challenges. These relationships included the existing support networks within the neighbourhood, fostered in churches, mosques and community facilities.

Participants also argued that these relationships of care and support were encouraged by living in proximity to family members. Meanwhile, residents also identified the importance and responsibility of the state to provide safety nets and support systems, especially to the highly vulnerable population living in Woodstock, and who are facing increasing barriers to access resources and dwelling options.

Above: ‘dreaming through modelling’ activity at the DAG cafe

65

7 / Dwelling principles

Organised community with a common vision

Fostering economic impact

Creating a model for equitable urban development

Engaging in social development.

Security and variety of tenure

Serenity and wellbeing

Reliable and affordable basic services

Access to formal and informal spaces of learning

Promoting a range of housing opportunities

Quality urban spaces

Trust and interconnectivity

Care and support

8 / Conclusion

Woodstock is recently going into a new stage of urban development, which has the potential to reinforce Cape Town’s socio-spatial inequalities. The investigation of the dwelling practices, aspirations, and conditions of particular groups under threat of displacement demonstrate the challenges they face through the current processes of change.

The broad description of gentrification does not grasp the multiple layers and complexity of these processes in Woodstock. In order to address these challenges, researchers and practitioners need more nuanced and experiential tools and methods to first understand and then begin proposing strategies. The activities during the workshop revealed four different ways in which the threat of displacement is being produced: by stateled development; by insecure tenure arrangements provided by the state and by private land and property owners; by market-led development (which is supported and encouraged by the state); and by increased costs of levies.

Meanwhile dwelling aspirations and principles prioritise social networks and support systems, as well as the importance of location, to address vulnerabilities.

They emphasise the need to build placebased relationships and support those through community facilities. The current approach to development in Woodstock must better incorporate the ecosystem of relationships and support and the role they play to the city of Cape Town. In this way it is possible to demonstrate the ways in which the current changes are hindering those relationships rather than reinforcing them. Furthermore, residents who engaged in the workshop activities 68

called for representational structures that can voice the concerns of low-income residents of the area and provide a way for them to participate in decision making processes affecting Woodstock area.

The multiplicity of forms and conditions of tenure and housing ownership need to be unpacked, enabling new models of housing to be accepted by law and in planning instruments. This opening up of the understanding of ownership will allow those who are most vulnerable a chance to secure their rightful place in an increasingly competitive city.

Community

The central question of the Community group was to connect experiences of dwelling with that of the wider city through an understanding of how public spaces are maintained, managed, and adapted in the neighbourhood of Woodstock. This was addressed through the lens of a particular open space which is representative of the physical and social infrastructure that define the experience of living in this part of Cape Town. The evolving privatisation of public space and redevelopment of this land, which is such an important part of the collective memory of groups in Woodstock, is reflected in the struggle for the community, with the diverse groups that compose it, to have their voice heard and participate in decision-making. The Community scale is where individual aspirations are unpacked to understand the multiplicity of people that share this space, with a focus on synergies and opportunities for unity.

Right: participatory activities in Trafalgar Park

1 / Introduction

The outcomes of ASF-UK’s fieldwork and research carried out with users of Trafalgar Park, as well as with other people who are local to the area (as residents and workers) but who do not use the park, highlighted a range of issues around processes of urban regeneration and how these affect people’s perception of and relationships with public space.

These issues can be grouped into two broad, interrelated sets of findings: (i) the impact of regeneration on the experience of Trafalgar Park as a public space; (ii) how residents, workers, and park users are able to engage with how this public space is shaped, developed, and envisioned.

THE EXPERIENCE OF TRAFALGAR PARK AS A PUBLIC SPACE There were three overarching issues which emerged from the way that people talked about how they experienced the park. These are: the experience of the park as a safe space; the experience of the park as an active and fulfilling space; and people’s feelings and expressions of ‘ownership’ of the park. It is also worth noting that people’s perspectives on these issues were sometimes highly contradictory for different people, with, for example, views expressed on some issues by some long-term residents highly divergent from those expressed by, for example, workers in new office development and newer residents. It was also clear that people’s experiences of the park have changed enormously over time, as processes of ‘regeneration’ and ‘degeneration’ have unfolded.

Above: proposed changes to Trafalgar Park Right: general map of the park Following pages: route through Trafalgar Park from North to South

Trafalgar Park, Woodstock (regional park) area - 6 hectares

74

75

2 / Safety and Security

One of the common points raised in discussions about the park, which has also been instrumental as a rationale for the need for regeneration of this public space, relates to perceptions and experiences about how secure, or safe, it is.

Our research with park users highlighted a number of features of the park environment which different users associate with safety or hazard. The map (opposite page) shows some of these different factors, including trees, or other areas of reduced visibility, security guards and fences, which are viewed by some positively as a means of regulating the space, and by others negatively as creating spatial traps in the park. Other specific features, such as the bridge spanning the Nelson Mandela Highway, were identified as particular hazard areas where muggings and attacks had taken place. Together these features combine to create zones of the park which are generally seen as unsafe, marked in red on the map.

What the map is not able to show, however, is the different perceptions of safety by different Woodstock residents, or the historical changes in the experience and perception of safety in the park.

There was a striking difference in the attitudes of long-term local residents from neighbouring streets such as Chapel Street, Francis Street, and Gympie Street, who generally saw the park as a safe open space during daylight hours, as opposed to workers in new commercial 76

developments immediately bordering the park (such as Clicks and the Boulevard on Searle Street) and some more recently arrived residents in Upper Woodstock and to the east of Trafalgar Park, many of whom saw the park as an unsafe space which they would not use, apart from to walk through, even during daytime.

Differing concerns with the safety of the park are critical, both because they affect the experience of the park by different groups of user, but also because responses to how these insecure spaces should be policed and managed have implications for the ‘ownership’ of the park and its various spaces, as discussed below.

Right: Maps showing analysis from the fieldwork; Security, Activities and Ownership

SECURITY

ACTIVITY

OWNERSHIP

3 / Activity

Many of the aspirations of park users related to having more opportunities for activity in the park, including sport, play, cultural events, and artefacts to engage with. Areas which are underused can be explained in part by the feeling that these areas are unsafe. However another explanation given for underused areas of the park is that activities and facilities are no longer provided in the same way by city authorities that they were historically.

In some cases it was claimed that the authorities managing the park deliberately discourage active use, for example of the informal soccer pitch.

While plans for the regeneration of the park do focus on providing facilities to promote active park use (including a market area, and more play and cultural facilities) the main focus of the plan is on capital investment for infrastructure.

However, there is little clarity on how the use of such facilities would be coordinated or managed on a day to day basis, and by whom. Currently, and in contrast to the historical approaches in which the city took an active role in running park events, the lack of public management of park activities means that little happens unless it is arranged on a voluntary basis by community groups (for example, the community gardening activities to the southern end of the park organised by a local resident).

78

Above: discussions around car parking; the bandstand in the park, a former centre of activity

COMMUNITY MICROSTORY Memories of Public Space David* *Names have been changed to protect identities

David, who is now in his late 50s, would visit Trafalgar Park often when he was younger, when he felt it was a safe and active space with facilities for multiple sports and events, such as live music. He has memories of a well maintained, beautiful and pleasant park, often used as a background for pictures during weddings and other events. From the 1990s onwards, this perception has changed, and he now considers the park very unsafe and no longer uses it as much. David feels that this situation has improved slightly in recent times, but still has serious safety issues. Currently, his use of the park is restricted by opening times, but he often uses it as a shortcut. He tends to use the upper part of the park which is not fenced, as the main park is closed during the weekends.

His grandchildren use the playground facilities and swimming pool, but David does not feel it is entirely safe to use the space. He says that there are local youths engaging in criminal behaviour and drug abuse as a consequence of the lack of facilities for sports and other activities. He dreams of a better maintained and active park with more activities especially for the youth. David feels that the park is no longer ‘his’, owing to the fact that there are sections fenced off and physically inaccessible, such as the heritage site, but also due to a sense of a lack of power and influence over decisions taken to define the future of the park, which in his view do not include people’s voices.

Newcomers: Sylvia * Silvia, a new resident living to the east of the park, moved to Cape Town in November 2014. She is a PhD student at the University of the Western Cape. When she initially moved to the area, she heard rumours that the park was very unsafe and was advised by her neighbours not to go there. However she does sometimes use the playground facilities with her child, but never after 5pm as she believes it is unsafe after this time.

She has not been in all of the areas of the park, such as the section by Victoria Road, and is not aware of its full dimension, mostly due to the various fences enclosing and fragmenting the space. Silvia acknowledges that rents in new residential developments are only affordable to people on high incomes such as herself. She anticipates that the low-income population still living in the area will have to move out soon as a consequence. She believes that taking the fences down and running more activities for the community would bring more people to the park.

79

4 / Ownership and Accessibility

A critical discussion highlighted by the engagement was the differences in senses of ownership of the park by different groups of local residents and park users. These were discussed in relation to issues as diverse as physical access to space, the policing of the space, and the symbolic representation of the space.

On one hand, there are clear formal boundaries about who has access to or manages different spaces. In terms of physical accessibility of park spaces, there are a number of areas fenced off, including heritage sites, on the basis that these need to be protected from vandalism. There are also distinctions in which spaces are owned or managed by different public authorities (Figure 3) and increasingly by private sector entities which determine access to and management of these park spaces.

On the other hand, in addition to such formal boundaries, processes of regeneration in Woodstock are also associated with a more insidious transformation in a sense of ownership of the park and its surroundings. In particular, there was a perception by many park users and residents that private (business) interests are increasingly staking a claim on public spaces.

In terms of the development of the park, another contestation around ownership relates to the symbolic ownership and sense of culture that the park represents. A specific debate here is how different proposals for the 80

physical development of the park can represent different histories, and visions of belonging – for example, whether the cultural artefacts and interpretation information in the park focuses on highlighting the remains of the city walls as part of the (colonial) history, or whether it incorporates counter-proposals to focus on the indigenous Khoisans’ pre-colonial histories.

A final issue in relation to who ‘owns’ the park as a public space relates to the attitudes of park users and service providers about what constitutes appropriate uses of the park.

COMMUNITY MICROSTORY Conflicting uses of public space

One clear area of conflict about the use of the park as a public space centres on the group of homeless people who frequently use the area of the park by the Victoria Road entrance. They often spend the day in the park socialising and drinking alcohol. They are perhaps the most regular users of Trafalgar Park, which they appreciate as a public space that they can use during the daytime without being moved on by police and security guards. They tend to come in the morning and are made to leave by security guards once the park shuts at the end of the day. However, many other park users say they find the presence of this group threatening, and believe their presence should be managed, and that increasing the number of security guards and installing cameras could contribute to the overall safety of the park. The need for a public space where they can relax and socialise is clearly an important need for the homeless park users, but at the same time their presence, and in particular their alcohol use, is a concern for many other park users. This raises the question of whether such a conflict of interest in park uses can be managed only through security provision and policing, or whether it needs more active interventions to manage complex social needs and relationships.

81

5 / Shaping Public Space: Engagement

The experiences of public space, discussed above, in many ways are underpinned and reinforced by the ways in which different groups and institutions are able to shape the development of public spaces such as Trafalgar Park, through processes of engagement and the relationships that these form between the state, the private sector and urban citizens.

The current landscape of engagement in shaping public space in Woodstock appears to be influenced by limited city budgets, which has led to a move towards public bodies leveraging investment from business through mechanisms such as the Cape Town Partnership, or the Woodstock Improvement District. This creates a strong relationship between city government, both elected and executive, and business, which has taken the role of filling the gap left by limited public budgets. Furthermore it seems to put business in a privileged position with reference to shaping how public spaces in the city are regenerated (although, as the court case with the Boulevard, discussed above, indicates, this relationship can at times be complicated and conflicted).

On the other hand, different branches of city government have a formal structural relationship with residents, both through democratic representation and through consultative relationships with registered community based organisations (CBOs), such as a number of local residents associations. However, in spite of these formal mechanisms for 82

consultation with local residents, most of the people reached during the research, and in particular lower income, longterm residents, expressed the feeling that they were not consulted around the development of the park, or that if they did engage in formal processes of consultation, it would yield few concrete results.

Given the increasing reliance on private sector funds by city government, and thus the importance of business in guiding the development of public spaces such as Trafalgar Park, a striking gap is the very limited relationship between local people, and their CBOs, and the businesses that are increasingly involved in the development of Woodstock and its public spaces. A key question here, therefore, is what space is there for Woodstock’s residents to hold private actors to account on the development and management of the park if they are increasingly taking on this role in the context of public sector austerity?

And can this relationship be mediated directly, or should it be mediated through structures of democratic representation and city authorities?

COMMUNITY MICROSTORY Private actors, public spaces?

In recent years, Trafalgar Park and its environs have witnessed what is regarded by many as the encroachment of public spaces by private actors and activities. Examples include a legal dispute with the city by a local business (the Boulevard) about claims on the use of the swimming pool car park, following their investments in the car park’s rehabilitation after they had used it as a construction laydown site. At the same time, Chapel St. School, which sits on Chapel Street to the west of Trafalgar Park, has recently leased its playing (sports) pitches to Clicks, a business which is using it as a car park, meaning the loss of a recreation facility previously used widely by the community, placing more pressure on the pitches in Trafalgar Park. These have now also been made inaccessible due to maintenance issues (see below). Similarly, the area to the east of the park near the swimming pool used to be a public space, but has now been leased by the business ‘Penny Pinchers’, and has been fenced off, also for parking space. In parallel, it seems that there is growing pressure for the park management to increasingly commercialise use of the park by charging user fees to cover maintenance costs. For example, the area of the park directly to the south of the pool was previously a soccer pitch, but this has now been prevented by the area being cordoned off with boulders and fences, apparently on the basis that teams using the pitch were not paying a fee to the park for the use of the area, but that their use of the pitch implied maintenance costs. At the same time, proposals for future developments of the park include income generating activities, such as a proposed food market, intended to increase use of the park space at the same time as generating income for park maintenance and management.

More ambiguously, in addition to the direct acquisition of space by businesses, and the commercialisation of the park itself, there is a growing practice of the policing of public spaces in and around the park by neighbouring businesses’ private security guards. This is justified as filling a gap in public security provision, but was seen by many residents as, on the one hand, providing security only to businesses’ employees, while ignoring the needs of other park users, and, on the other, constituting a subtle territorial claim on public spaces by private companies. At the neighbourhood scale, this reflects the wider approach of provision of cleaning and security services by the Woodstock Improvement District, which is funded through levies on local businesses.

While this may be an effective way of funding crucial public services to public spaces in the context of limited public budgets, the guidance of such services by a board of trustees made up of business owners raises troubling questions about whose priorities steer the management of such public services and spaces.

83

6 / Shared Aspirations

Through the processes of participatory planning and design, a series of common aspirations for public spaces emerged which shaped the definition of the Community Principles listed in the following section: One theme which emerged from participants of the activities was the need to ensure that the park becomes a shared space, which promotes a broad sense of ownership by different groups of residents and park users. This requires mediating different, and at times conflicting, uses of the park, and the inclusion of different groups which may not be able to access or use the park without support. It also means also ensuring that the park truly remains a common asset, and that feeling of ownership, or use, of the park does not privilege groups associated with financial contributions to its maintenance.

Linked to the development of the park as a ‘commons’ is the need to ensure that the memories and history that the park depicts and represents are built both on common strands of group heritage, as well as accommodating different visions and histories. This could require intertwining and debating different heritages through the physical development of the park and its artefacts, as well as a park interpretation board and events, which could bridge the different histories of Woodstock and its residents and well as providing a platform for future collective memories.

Trafalgar Park is at the heart of an urban space which juxtaposes different 84

socio-economic groups, economic and social activities, and geographic spaces from long-term, low-income residents, to new, higher-income groups, from large business, to small shops and community organisations, and from the city to the surrounding nature reserves. Currently, the park seems to act almost as a barrier, which demarcates the boundaries between these groups, activities and spaces. In future, the park should become a space which acts as a social, economic and physical crossroads, linking spaces, activities and people, and addressing rather than reinforcing fragmentation.

A key principle which emerged is the need for different park users and residents to be in the position to be actively engaged in decision-making processes about the development and management of the park. While formal consultation mechanisms do currently exist, this would also require that such engagement is designed to reach a wider group of residents and interested parties, and that these groups believe that their views will have an impact on plans.

A further aspiration was for the preservation and enhancement of the physical conditions of the park, to ensure users felt safe and secure to use the space at all times. Adequate maintenance and improvements would ensure the space is well used, which would enhance feelings of security.

Right: participatory activities in Trafalgar Park

85

7 / Community Principles

Organised community with a common vision

Fostering economic impact

Creating a model for equitable urban development

Engaging in social development.

Security and variety of tenure

Serenity and wellbeing

Reliable and affordable basic services

Access to formal and informal spaces of learning

Public space as a common asset

Integrated heritage

Socio-spatial connection

Citizen engagement

Promoting a range of housing opportunities

Quality urban spaces

Trust and interconnectivity

Care and support

Comfort, safety and serenity

8 / Conclusion

Public space is under threat in Cape Town, with a lack of financial capacity of the public sector to adequately protect and maintain key neighbourhood public spaces such as Trafalgar Park. As demonstrated by the participatory activities, the park is a vital resource in Woodstock, one which is held in the memory of many as the heart of the neighbourhood. Processes of inequitable urban regeneration are being clearly manifested as areas of the park are made inaccessible to the public, either through directly fencing off areas, gradual encroachment of alternative uses, such as for car parking, or controlling who can use the park and during which hours, by the increasing security presence.

Private companies are taking advantage of the urban regeneration processes in the inner city, in order to justify the encroachment on what is public land, in the absence of management of activities by the public sector. Without spaces to meet and activities to take part in, vulnerable groups in Woodstock are denied the ability to exercise their rights as citizens. With land being contested in the ways outlined in this chapter, it has emerged that communities in Woodstock must unite across socio-economic and spatial divides in order to devise a common plan for the park, in order to present these issues to the municipal government and demand better management. The government and civic society must hold developers to account for changes that are being proposed to the park. Public consultations must be participatory in 88

a genuine sense and not merely seen as tick-box exercises, with landscaping design that recognises the diverse cultural history of citizens and protects their heritage. Crucially, citizens must be able to take decisions regarding public space development and maintenance. The emphasis on security must not exclude groups of people from using the park, and instead the focus should be on removing barriers that deny many residents access to this communal resource.

City

The City group focused on highlighting the experiences of mobilisation in four distinct locations across Cape Town, with the intention of (i) contextualising Woodstock’s ongoing transformation, by understanding this in relation to concurrent urbanisation processes elsewhere; and (ii) opening possibilities for comparative discussion of the future of Cape Town’s inner city areas.

Operating from within this framework, the City group asked: what are the characteristics and implications of urban regeneration processes in Woodstock, when seen from the perspective of Cape Town’s most vulnerable dwellers in other parts of the city? The work of the group and this section of the report link to ongoing discussions on the place that community-led urban development plays and can potentially play in future Cape Town. We contribute to this debate by highlighting and interpreting individual and collective histories - giving special attention to the ways residents participate in the making of the city, and to ways that they resist unjust processes and outcomes of urban change. These explorations of specific cases, create new insights into the significance of on-going and contested regeneration and displacement processes, and are intended to contribute productively to discussions that might stimulate ‘other’ patterns of inner-city regeneration – ones more attuned to the housing needs of vulnerable citizens

Right: Freedom Park, Mitchells Plain

1 / Introduction

DISPLACEMENT AND THE URBAN PERIPHERY The approach of the City group built on DAG’s existing programme on Participatory Urban Governance and its two main themes, Re-imagining Cape Town and the Participatory Urban Forums.

Re-imagining Cape Town consists of a series of projects and activities aimed at strategically and incrementally achieving ‘re-imagined’ human settlements and a ‘new urban order’ in the city. This is based on the idea that anticipating alternative possibilities or potentialities at the urban scale is key, in order to support locallybased transformative interventions. The Participatory Urban Forum programme focuses on strengthening civil society coalitions across the city, with the aim of expanding the range of participants in such processes of urban visioning and localised interventions. Activities are grounded in the city-wide platform of 25 CBOs with whom DAG collaborates across Cape Town – while simultaneously working with other NGO partners and social networks to create an overarching support structure at the urban level.

In preparation of the workshop and based on their on-going work at the citywide scale, DAG identified four sites and community-based organisations which would form the main focus of the work we conducted in the field: Freedom Park in Mitchell’s Plain; Factreton in Kensington; South Road; and Egoli Informal Settlement in the Philippi Horticultural Area (PHA). Each of these 92

sites illustrates the pressures to which urban communities are being subjected in the transformation of the city, each with a range of unjust outcomes. Yet these cases also strongly emphasise the existing capacity of communities to mobilise towards more participatory forms of urban governance. In Freedom Park, the Tafelsig People’s Association (TPA) resisted eviction and initiated an innovative selfhelp housing project. In Factreton, the Cape Metropolitan Backyarders’ Forum have been advocating the unlocking and future use of City-owned land for lowincome housing. In South Road, the South Road Family Association (SFRA) was under threat of eviction at the time of the workshop, and finally secured tenure vis-àvis large-scale infrastructure interventions planned in their neighbourhood later in 2015. Finally in Egoli (PHA), residents are facing very precarious living conditions, and have been collaborating with 12 other settlements in the PHA, who collectively form the Philippi Horticultural Housing Committee, and beyond, to jointly negotiate with the City and other authorities towards improved future outcomes.

Above: Discussions with residents of South Road

93

CITY SITES

2 / Freedom Park, Mitchell’s Plain

MOBILISING FOR COMMUNITY-LED HOUSING CONTEXT Freedom Park is a settlement located in Tafelsig, in the south east of Mitchell’s Plain, one of the largest townships of Cape Town. The settlement was first established in 1998, when a group of backyard dwellers living in overcrowded conditions in the area decided to move to a vacant piece of city-owned land, which had been zoned for a school that had never been built. The backyarders occupied the land and shacks were erected on Freedom Day, giving the settlement its name: Freedom Park. By the end of 1999, there were 485 structures in Freedom Park with an estimated population of over 2,400 people, half of whom under the age of 18. A survey undertaken at that time found that only 5% of the adults were formally employed, 23% were self-employed or casually employed, and the remaining majority were unemployed. Over 70% of people occupying the site were registered on the municipality’s social housing waiting list, some reportedly for longer than twenty years (DAG, 2009; Losch & Moos, 2000).

The municipality reacted immediately against the occupation of land and 96

sought an eviction order to demolish the settlement. When the bulldozers arrived, the community built a human chain around the settlement to protect their homes.

Residents formed the Tafelsig People’s Association on the same year. The Legal Resources Centre (LRC) was called upon to defend them against eviction and the matter was referred to mediation – a process which lasted five years. During that period, the municipality refused to provide basic services in order to prevent the settlement from growing. Residents lived without safe drinking water, sanitation and washing facilities, refuse disposal, street lighting or electricity for five years, which resulted in acute public health risks. Notwithstanding the extreme difficulties, the residents of Freedom Park decided to remain in the area, and with the assistance of Legal Resources Centre, they were not evicted. In the following years, through working with DAG, the community was able to form their own NGO - the Freedom Park Development Association - and successfully secure the land, before embarking on a communityled, self-help housing process framed by the City of Cape Town’s People’s Housing Process. This process was facilitated

by DAG with funding from the Mellon Housing Initiative, and culminated in 2009

Above: Illustration of the transect walk

CITY MICROSTORY A sandbag house in Freedom Park Yvonne* *Names have been changed to protect identities

Yvonne lived in Cape Town city centre until 1998 where she was on a waiting list for subsidised housing. In 1998, she moved to Tafelsig and rented a backyard shack for R300/month before gaining rights to a sandbag house in Freedom Park in 2011.

She owns this house, which she lives in with her husband and three children. Their only costs are for services and maintenance of the property. Yvonne stresses the importance of living spaces for every family member, including private outdoor space.

She says that the neighbourhood is considered as a difficult and unsafe environment for children, because of gangs, violence, and drugs. Furthermore, there is a lack of public transport connections to the schools, hospitals and shops which are available in the city centre.

In spite of these issues, she says that the community is very cohesive and the relations with the neighbours are constructive.

97

with the construction of 585 homes.

EXPERIENCES When the City Group visited, members of the Tafelsig People’s Association (TPA), including one of the long standing leaders, Mrs. Najuwa Gallant, provided a detailed account of Freedom Park’s history and successes. When asked about the TPA’s current plans, they highlighted their current engagement with the ongoing Kapteinsklip & Mnandi Coastal Node Precinct development plans in Tafelsig, where the TPA is demanding that affordable housing is introduced in the municipality’s development framework.

Mrs Gallant and the TPA representatives also explained that their work has recently expanded beyond housing, based on the realisation that housing alone will not address the severe social problems that the community faces daily. Many residents of Freedom Park are in conditions of poverty and extreme vulnerability; typical challenges include unemployment, domestic violence, and public health problems, including TB, HIV/AIDS, and alcohol and drug dependency. At the same time, the acute shortage of adequate housing remains an important challenge for the area, as increasing numbers of shacks are being 98

built informally on existing dwelling plots, and a growing number of street dwellers live in conditions of deprivation.

Throughout our transect walks and conversations, both TPA representatives and residents emphasised the mutual support networks that exist within the community, and particularly the emergent role of youth groups in tackling questions of social isolation and drug use in the neighbourhood. At the same time, they discussed that social and economic networks beyond Tafelsig itself are very fragile, and made more difficult by the poor transport links from Tafelsig to the rest of Cape Town.

LESSONS LEARNT AND OPPORTUNITIES The story of Freedom Park is particularly important in the context of this discussion because it demonstrates the capacity of a community to persevere in the face of overwhelming odds, to interact with a range of support organisations and public agencies, and to design and build a successful integrated housing development.

Two key assets emerged from this case: the first is strong community leadership, which has been instrumental in order to mobilise extremely vulnerable

households, who participated actively in defining their settlement - contributing to the design of the site layout, to the definition of guidelines for infrastructure development, and to construction.

This included strategic use of media to communicate the community’s position.

The second asset consists in the community’s capacity to build citywide as well as international networks of solidarity and support, including the LRC, DAG, the Mellon Housing Initiative and the City of Cape Town. Throughout this process and the following years, the Freedom Park community consistently demonstrated their ability to work together and remain resolute in achieving their goal of dignified housing. Notwithstanding the social challenges discussed by the interviewees, the Freedom Park case remains today a model for best practice in community-led and people-centred housing development.

Above: Photos from Freedom park, Mitchells Plain

99

3 / Kensington and Factreton

MOBILISING TO UNLOCK LAND CONTEXT The communities of Kensington and Factreton are situated near the area of Century City, along the N1 Highway. Known as Windermere and Kensington until the mid 1960s, the neighbourhood was formed at the beginning of the 20th century when the first houses were erected. By the early 1920s, the majority of residents were living in informal structures, and by the 1940s, Windermere-Kensington had grown into the city’s largest informal settlement. At the time, this was a mixed area where “people classified as African, coloured, and white lived, played, and worked together” (Field, 2001: 27). Under the policy of separate development, Windermere was erased by the state between the late 1950s. Factreton was built to replace it as a new ‘coloured’ area in compliance with the Group Areas Act, and other groups were forcibly removed from the site (Field, 2001).

According to the 2011 census, Factreton now houses over 5,700 households and 21,000 people, a large percentage of whom self-classify as ‘coloured’. The Kensington Backyarders Association (KBA) is DAG’s main contact in the area and first worked with DAG in 2008 100

on the Provincial Backyarder Response Programme. KBA is a community-based organisation that was established in the early 2000s by backyard dwellers and tenants living in Factreton, and a member of the Cape Town Metro Backyarders Network established in 2009. The primary aim of the association is to improve the living conditions of backyarders and informal dwellers, and to mobilise for land and the production of truly affordable housing in the region.

EXPERIENCES The residents of Kensington and Factreton face considerable daily challenges. The neighbourhood includes a mix of formal and informal housing, including several publicly owned units. At the same time many people in the area live in pockets of informal settlements, or in informal backyard shacks that have incrementally filled the yards of formal housing units, generating widespread overcrowding.

Backyard dwellers have limited access to proper sanitation facilities as well as other primary municipal services running water, electricity, refuse removal - which creates public health risks in the neighbourhood. A few of the backyard dwellers we interviewed also reported abuses from their landlords and heavy-

Above: Illustration of the transect walk

CITY MICROSTORY Backyard living Patrick* *Names have been changed to protect identities

Patrick, 52, has lived in Kensington on the same plot for his entire life, moving out of the main house and into a backyard shack when he was 21. As his family has grown, they’ve been gradually moving out of the property into informal structures in the backyard.

There are now 30 people living on the plot, split between the main house, where Patrick’s mother lives with one of her grandchildren, and three shacks in the backyard where his immediate family live. There is a further shack in the front yard where a family friend and their family live. Together they pay a collective rent of R340/month, excluding the metered water and electricity. A carpentry workshop is also part of the plot, generating a large portion of income for the family.

Patrick considers the neighbourhood to be well-connected with a positive living environment. He identifies some issues with regards to safety, such as the presence of gangs, drugs and violence.

101

handed eviction threats by the City. In several instances, interviewees reported feeling insecure in the neighbourhood, and having been exposed to violence in the streets.

KBA leaders highlighted that increasing the provision of housing for those earning less than R1,500/month is a high priority for Factreton. They suggested that the City of Cape Town should urgently upgrade backyard shacks where possible, and that an effort should be made to re-house within the same area those backyarders who are living in conditions of overcrowding, the groups living in the nearby squatter camp, and the numerous homeless of Kensington. They stressed that housing programmes need to be complemented with appropriate social support, in order to tackle on-going issues of safety and unemployment, as well as to provide health and drug addiction support and other forms of social care.

There is a large parcel of vacant land, adjacent to Century City station, that is owned by the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA). It was previously a dumping site, but remained unused for decades. Century City Station opened next to this parcel in June 2010 on the occasion of the 2010 FIFA World Cup and 102

since then, there have been discussions about the possibility to transfer this land to the City of Cape Town (CoCT) for affordable housing. Community leaders explained how in 2012 they developed a plan for this land with DAG, with complex negotiations with PRASA as well as CoCT. This situation evolved in 2014, when the Voortrekker Road Corridor Regeneration Framework, a transport oriented development corridor was approved, identifying Kensington and Factreton as areas of intensification (Greater Tygerberg Partnership, 2014).

Since then, the community has advocated for the construction of adequate and affordable housing in the area through partnerships and alignment with the Voortrekker Road Corridor projects, as a means to respond to the housing needs of those who are currently settled in the neighbourhood. Following KPA’s and DAG’s enquiries to the City, several vacant parcels of land have now been mapped by the City, and their potential for housing development as part of the Voortrekker Road Corridor is being investigated.

LESSONS LEARNT AND OPPORTUNITIES Notwithstanding the difficult living conditions of Kensington and Factreton,

the experiences described in the previous section highlight the opportunities opened up by some of the ongoing development plans in the area.

Above: Photos from Kensington

Firstly, ongoing urban planning processes at the municipal level have been understood by KBA as a relevant opportunity for lower income groups living in the area. The KBA demonstrated that it is possible for community groups and their support networks to engage proactively with such plans. The KBA are a persistent and organised community, mobilising on many occasions to improve housing and basic services the the area.

The community’s engagement with DAG has been pivotal in assisting the community in mobilising, lobbying and influencing policy. Although the outcomes of this process are still not evident, this is a positive outcome.

103

4 / South Road

MOBILISING FOR DEVELOPMENT

PARTICIPATORY

CONTEXT South Road is located between Plumstead and Wynberg in the Southern Suburbs of Cape Town. Properties along South Road are owned by the City of Cape Town, which purchased them in the 1960s following a plan to widen the road. The detailed design for the road scheme was finalised early in 2000, but construction never started. In 2007, South Road was included in the plan for an Integrated Rapid Transit (IRT) system in Cape Town, MyCiTi, to be implemented in phases over a period of 20 years. The first elements of the system aimed to enable the City to meet the transport requirements for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Different trunks of MyCiTi Phase 1 were completed between 2010 and 2015. Plans for the second phase include a more extensive service to the southeast parts of the city, connecting Khayelitsha and Wynberg along a 35km route and passing through South Road.

Since the plan’s approval, the South Road section of the route has been an area of contention due to the evictions planned along the road to enable the construction. Residents of the 26 council houses designated for demolition are 104

organised in the South Road Families’ Association (SRFA) and at the time of the workshop, they were opposing recent and planned evictions.

Tenants of South Road were initially sent council notices terminating their leases in 2001, and were given until January 2015 to leave their homes. Later in the same year, however, the council withdrew their termination notices and announced that no action would be taken against tenants until the public participation process around the proposed MyCiTi bus route in the Southern Suburbs.

After a first public meeting to discuss the city‘s plans, the Wynberg Residents and Ratepayers’ Association issued the following statement: “Wynberg residents do not support the South Road/Brodie Road couplet scheme, which has been disguised as a MyCiTi route”.

The SRFA is very strong organisationally, and it includes a significant number of renters, many of whom have rented houses and flats from the council for the last 20 years, inhabiting well-located areas such as Winberg, which forms part of the historic southern suburbs. In 2014, with many householders having pending eviction notices, and demolitions elsewhere having already

Above: Illustration of the transect walk

CITY MICROSTORY Eviction for a road Jane* *Names have been changed to protect identities

Jane moved to South Road from Lansdowne in 1986. She pays R4159/month in rent to the council, which excludes water and electricity. In September 2014, she received an eviction notice with a four month warning of her relocation to Wynberg.

She has been ‘illegally’ occupying her house since January 2015, but is still paying rent. She says living in the neighbourhood is great, with plenty of open spaces. A member of the South Road Families Association, she sees the diverse community as functioning well together, and thinks the connectivity to the city centre, by car or bus, is good.

These evictions are the result of the new MyCiTi connection from the periphery to the city centre, which threatens to create socio-economic divisions. During apartheid, the site was used as a ‘buffer zone’, to divide citizens through racial lines, and it is feared similar divides will be reinstated through the project.

105

taken place in the name of road widening, the Committee sought advice from the LRC and later from DAG. EXPERIENCES The residents that participated in interviews articulated a strong sense of pride as a mixed race community free of xenophobia and racism. It was perceived that the plans of the council were going to disrupt a lively and strong community, and that the proposed design is ‘another iteration of the 1960’s apartheid plan for the area, and is not in alignment with the City’s vision to create integrated urban environments’ (DAG, 2013). The plans to demolish 26 houses in South Road, which constitute part of the rental housing stock, contradicts the need to keep rental stock in well located areas of the city.

In the period 2014-2015, the SRFA undertook an intense campaign in order to oppose the plans of MyCiti, culminating in a legal procedure in 2015, which was ongoing at the time of ASFUK’s engagement. Their claims were articulated in a number of points to the Council. The first concerned the lack of public participation and consultation around the plan, with residents articulating that they were not being included in a process of decision-making, planning, 106

and design which affected them directly and in a substantial manner. As was later articulated by DAG, ‘it was perceived that there is a lack of supporting plans for adjacent land-use along the MyCiti route, both existing and proposed. While ‘transit orientated development’ was made mention of in the meeting(s), there are no plans to demonstrate how this is going to be achieved through land use, re-zoning or other public infrastructure.’ (DAG, 2013) In April 2015, the South Road Families Association took the city to court after three houses along the route had been prematurely demolished in December 2014 without full council approval. The subsequently won their case in October 2015.

LESSONS LEARNT AND OPPORTUNITIES The claim articulated by DAG and the SRFA was that the plan was being seen as a ‘highway’ that will further divide the community of Wynberg and Plumstead.

As an outcome of the community’s persistent and resolute engagement with the local government, in October 2015 the City of Cape Town was ordered by the Cape High Court to investigate alternative routes to the South Road/Brodie Road area before proceeding with Phase 2A

MyCiTi bus project.

As a final outcome of the process, the Cape High Court requested that: •

●The City engage the SRFA in meaningful public participation;

•

●The City is interdicted from enforcing termination of lease agreement notices given to 26 families; and

•

●That the City is interdicted from demolishing the properties occupied by the families.

Above: Photos from South Road

This story illustrated one of the most successful cases of advocacy for democratisation of decision-making processes in the city.

107

5 / Egoli, Philippi Horticultural Area

MOBILISING AGAINST FORCED EVICTIONS CONTEXT The Philippi Horticultural Area (PHA) is located on the historic Cape Flats, located just 23km from the city centre. The area is highly renowned and important to the rest of the City of Cape Town because of its biodiversity and patchwork of farms that supply a significant amount of the city’s fresh food products, which is critical to local livelihoods (Battersby-Lennard and Haysom, 2012). Over the years, the PHA has had an increase in the growth of informal housing. Thirteen informal settlements, ranging from clusters of 20 dwellings to those of more than 400, are now scattered in various parts of the area, with nearly all located on privately owned land and thus vulnerable to sudden eviction.

One such informal settlement is Egoli, the site of which was once a football playing ground. In 1996, a group of local community residents evicted from a nearby farm set up informal housing structures (Drivdal, 2011) on private land and since then the settlement has gradually increased in density to 427 households, as of 2013.

108

EXPERIENCES The residents of Egoli face a number of daily challenges. For example, access to Egoli is via gravel roads; the settlement is prone to shack fire incidents, with residents who are not provided with centralised energy making fires for cooking and heating, and is therefore categorised by the CoCT as at a high level of fire risk; the community have to rely on localised battery and solar systems for electricity, and light provision is very limited; sanitation is only provided at the perimeter of the site, in the form of portaloos which are felt to be unsafe at night and water is provided by communal pumps.

The lack of drainage contributes, along with the high water table, to acute flooding every winter, and this is exacerbated by the poor quality materials from which most of the dwellings are made (Drivdal, 2011). There is a need for house upgrading as the current shacks, which have become more overcrowded as families have grown over time and are inadequate at providing shelter and comfort. There are significant public health problems, including TB, HIV/AIDS,

Above: Illustration of the transect walk

and alcohol and drug dependency, with a lack of clinics nearby. The conditions and ad hoc infrastructure are particularly difficult for those who are sick and/or living with disabilities, especially those with mobility issues. A further challenge is that unemployment is high within Egoli (estimated by community leaders at 60%), and when there are jobs they are precarious/short-term and for low wages.

Local farmers often bring in labour from elsewhere.

Community leaders and the network of leadership across settlements have been important in confronting environmental and social challenges associated with living in Egoli (Drivdal, 2015). The local committee of Egoli is represented on the Philippi Horticultural Housing Committee, which includes leaders from all thirteen informal settlements. The internal organisational structure is strong, with an elected leader who acts as chairman and who is very experienced and well respected in the community, along with a treasurer and a committee who support them. This committee connects with others in the area so there is capacity to organise across settlements. The community is reportedly very cohesive, with a strong sense of belonging and, where necessary

and when there is space, welcoming of – rather than hostile to – outsiders.

Since the original settlement of Egoli was created, there has been a change of land ownership and several eviction attempts which the community have successfully fought. In 2010, the land owner made efforts to evict informal dwellers from the settlement, but his attempts were unsuccessful. However, as a result of numerous eviction attempts, there is a general sense of uncertainty among residents about their security of tenure. Community members also report on the sudden and forceful character of evictions involving the police, military, and bulldozers being deployed unannounced early in the morning.

The community’s main aim now is to acquire land to build houses and for them to be provided with proper services and infrastructure. They also place high priority on access to job opportunities, for example the formation of an agricultural cooperative, and aim to improve the educational opportunities of young people in conjunction with better provision of sanitation and medical support. They are focused on protecting the current settlement until such time that the government provides an alternative 109

for the community to be resettled.

LESSONS LEARNT AND OPPORTUNITIES

other informal settlements nearby; and collaboration with local researchers from the University of Cape Town

In order to bring about change, the community are mobilising knowledge gained through an accumulative understanding of eviction after multiple attempts, and liaising with key contacts such as legal experts in order to challenge eviction. There is a strong sense of pride expressed by community leaders in being a peaceful community who are keen to work within the law to improve their housing and settlement opportunities.

They are effectively collaborating with other local settlements in forming mutual support networks. These internal resources are bolstered by external organisations including NGOs, ANCprovided legal support, PR council, Islamic Aid; Legal Resource Centre; DAG; and a partnership with international exchange students in medicine.

Effective actions taken include the original squatting of the site; and repeatedly taking fast legal steps to prevent eviction, utilising networks of expertise; media exposure, including write-ups of individual community members’ lives; successful internal coordination and coordination with 110

Above: Photos from Egoli, PHA Below: conducting interviews with residents of Egoli

6 / Shared Aspirations

Following the initial days of fieldwork, the group brought residents from the four communities to the DAG cafÊ to bring together emerging aspirations, forming the City group’s principles for action going forward: There was strong agreement across the groups that urban development should address the needs of the most vulnerable groups, including women, children, youth, elderly and disabled people. In particular, this would involve working to secure the future for children and youth and providing support and livelihood opportunities for young people.

The groups also agreed that a more collaborative, participative, transparent, and accountable form of planning and decision-making was valued as a key priority. The components of this would include building on and recognising existing communities and existing community governance structures (CBOs), producing tangible outcomes, and guaranteeing and enforcing transparency and accountability.

Security of tenure against evictions, displacement, and relocation of poor and vulnerable groups was valued by community leaders as well as residents of different sites with different tenure arrangements. This involves recognising the existence of diverse tenure arrangements, be they formal or informal, including diverse types of rental (subletting etc.), as well as recognising and responding to diverse tenure options/ aspirations.

112

Affordable housing for low-income groups should be integrated into a number of other components, including sustainable livelihoods opportunities, access to citywide infrastructure, such as transportation, public space, communal facilities (schools, clinics), and basic infrastructure networks (water, sanitation, electricity) which are reliable and affordable.

It was discussed that land and development opportunities must be distributed fairly across the city. Where housing is located away from the city centre, there should be opportunities for employment, education, and leisure outside of the centre.

The quality of the environment was valued as a key. In particular, environmental health, including aspects of the natural and built environment that may affect health, and quality and maintenance of housing and communal spaces.

Right: Sharing common aspirations across the four City sites at the DAG cafe

113

7/ City Principles

Organised community with a common vision

Fostering economic impact

Creating a model for equitable urban development

Engaging in social development.

Security and variety of tenure

Serenity and wellbeing

Reliable and affordable basic services

Access to formal and informal spaces of learning

Public space as a common asset

Integrated heritage

Socio-spatial connection

Citizen engagement

Addressing the needs of the most vulnerable groups

Meaningful participation based on existing community structures

Security of tenure

Affordability within integrated development

Promoting a range of housing opportunities

Quality urban spaces

Trust and interconnectivity

Care and support

Comfort, safety and serenity

Spatial justice

Quality of environment

8 / Conclusion

Through building an understanding of the issues faced by residents in Freedom Park in Mitchell’s Plain, Factreton, South Road, and Egoli Informal Settlement in the PHA, a number of lessons have been drawn that can be taken forward through actions around equitable urban development, both in the inner city and in the wider periphery of the city.

The interplay of large scale, top-down infrastructure programmes and policies at the level of the city government, as part of efforts to better connect the outer city areas to the opportunities that the inner city provides, often does not meet with the needs of residents, and in some cases could lead to homes being demolished and communities displaced in ways that run counter to the rights and needs of city dwellers, as demonstrated with the MyCiTi connection to South Road and the Voortrekker Road Corridor through Kensington.

Urban developments which repeat the segregations of apartheid planning must be rethought. The process through which improvements to public infrastructure are made needs to be more careful in implementation, attentive to communities’ needs, and layered with meaningful public engagement and a series of environmental, heritage, and social impact assessments. These plans, such as MyCiti must be fully reconsidered, with a focus on transport orientated development and all the surrounding land use and amenities that that entails. In these cases, demonstrating alternatives 116

to demolishing properties and at the same time presenting opportunities for more and better affordable housing and services, counters top-down processes with aspirations that are representative of the most vulnerable citizens.

The success of these communities in contesting such forms of development is testament to effective networks of advocacy and collaboration amongst various settlement groups, strong and energetic leadership by passionate and skillful individuals, and successful partnerships with external organisations.

In the case of Freedom Park, the community has built a network of support in order to maintain their right to dignified housing. With the Egoli settlement, the community committee fosters inclusion, connecting common struggles across the PHA and thus building the capacity to organise against threats of eviction and towards improvements in shelter and amenities.

Protecting the rights of these groups, improving civil society networks across the city, and enabling incremental improvements to these settlements and others is the basis of ongoing projects and activities carried out by community organisations in collaboration with DAG and a platform of other NGOs, which is gradually strengthening this alternative approach to urban development and regeneration.

Integrated Principles

The set of Integrated Principles are developed from the Principles across the four scales, and provide a framework for action going forward:

2. Create opportunities for meaningful participation Organised community with a common vision

Policy and Planning Dwelling

Citizen engagement

-Ensure collaborative processes of decision making -Provide transparent and accountable mechanisms which strengthen the ability of civil society organisations to engage in and influence city-level, province and national debates -Identify and guarantee tangible outcomes of participatory processes

Community City

Integrated

1. Nurture social networks and collective bonds among and within civil society groups

Creating a model for equitable urban development

-Build social resilience among vulnerable groups -Identify and strengthen democratic spaces for constructive conversations and encounters -Foster trust across diverse groups and residents with varied histories and identities

Meaningful participation based on existing community structures Socio-spatial connection

Trust and interconnectivity Care and support

3. Enhance social support systems for vulnerable groups -Recognise and strengthen existing strategies and tactics people use to cope with specific vulnerabilities

Addressing the needs of the most vulnerable groups

Access to formal and informal spaces of learning

-Integrate social development objectives and actions into spatial and housing frameworks -Implement immediate responses to vulnerabilities as well as sustaining welfare in the long term

Serenity and well-being

5. Improve the spatial and material quality of the built environment prioritising those most in need.

Integrated heritage

-Upgrade, build and maintain housing and public environments that improve health and comfort

Comfort, safety and serenity

-Use design and urban development processes to promote trust and a sense of belonging and collective ownership

Security and variety of tenure

-Produce homes in which people can dwell with dignity and public spaces that are safe and that make people feel safe

Quality urban spaces

Quality of environment

Security of tenure

4. Ensure equitable access to quality housing, infrastructure and services withing the inner-city and in other high value and well connected areas -Provide affordable options within an integrated development approach where housing and livelihoods are linked -Prioritise access to housing in wellserviced locations for city dwellers most in need including those on lowest or no income -Uphold standards that safeguard basic human rights

Reliable and affordable basic services

Fostering inclusive economic impact

Engaging in social development.

6. Achieve security of tenure for all, with no evictions or displacement -Recognise formal and informal residents living under diverse tenure arrangements -Use effective state regulation and civil society monitoring to protect residents –Especially those at highest risk of displacement and eviction

Promoting a range of housing opportunities

Public space as a common asset

Spatial justice

Affordability within integrated development

7. Advance spatial justice, integrating different urban spaces and social groups -Identify, measure and evaluate the equitable distribution of benefits from public investment, including economic opportunities, over the short, medium and long-term -Unlock land and property to redress spatial and social inequalities -Rebalance density and geographical integration

improve

Conclusion

This report outlines the findings from a collaborative, multistakeholder workshop held in April 2015, which was designed to build-on the ongoing work of DAG in advocating community voices across Cape Town through the ASF-UK developed Change by Design participatory design and planning approach.

The aim was to examine processes of urban change, specifically the displacement of low-income residents from the city centre to the urban periphery due to forces of unchecked gentrification, a pattern that can be observed in many cities globally. Through building on the dialogue which has been formed by groups such as DAG and others, we focused on the experiences of residents with high levels of housing insecurity and risk of displacement.

Through a process of projective diagnosis, the aim was to unpack their aspirations for dwelling, shared spaces, and access to the city. This is part of consolidating commonalities between these groups and recognising the need to offer alternatives to housing and improving services, which are inclusive and represent the aspirations of all citizens, especially those that have been marginalised.

On the final day of the workshop, we brought together a number of different stakeholders, from NGOs, universities, civil society, local government and private companies to consolidate a series of recommendations for ways forwards in the short, medium and longer term: In the short to medium term, it was recommended that there is a need to improve stakeholder coordination and opportunities for meaningful citizen participation. This could start by enhancing the platform created by DAG for a positive and constructive dialogue on ways forward in Woodstock through strengthening existing ties and extending the network across the city. Linked to, and building on this, better advocacy and awareness raising to highlight the negative externalities of the market-led approach to urban regeneration and to enroll citizens in questioning the status quo.

Through building a collective voice, one output could be a community-led mandate which is drafted by groups in order to set out the aspirations of residents and the terms under which they would like to see this change happen, which could be a first 120

step towards advocating for secure housing.

In the medium term and working towards the next engagement with the partnership, it was recommended that further research and analysis is carried out, including a detailed examination of housing strategies and instruments, exploring mechanisms for implementing inner-city affordable housing.

For example, land value capture/land sharing, special interest zones, cross-subsidy, and inclusion housing regulations.

Another aspect that has longer term aspirations would be in improving accountability and impact monitoring of public sector investments. There are currently inadequate urban monitoring systems for inclusive urbanisation, partly due to a lack of capacity but also political will. Most monitoring focuses on economic indicators and very little measurement of what matters for the poor (e.g. tenure security, reduction in evictions, etc) is currently undertaken.

In the long term, it is important to define areas in which room for manoeuvre can be found through building synergies between the private and public sectors, and civil society. Interaction and partnerships need to be identified between developers, corporations, small businesses, and residents, which involves acting on areas of common interest. This could foster better livelihood opportunities for vulnerable groups and opportunities for collaboration around housing and infrastructure. Alongside this, the private sector ought to be better held account for social impact and invest in communities through regulatory systems.

Linked to this, is improving the dialogue and democratic processes between residents and the local and national government; working towards achieving tenure security for residents facing eviction through engagement with a government better equipped to face these challenges and improving channels of communication and representation, building trust between state actors and community representatives.

GOING FORWARD The ASF-UK and DAG partnership is looking forward to the next phase of collaboration. This may evolve as further investigations are carried out, however, having undertaken a broad study of 121

the city and the challenges faced by vulnerable residents, an identified way forward is to zoom in on a particular site in which change could be catalysed.

This could involve identifying a suitable site for a pilot project for a new mechanism for affordable inner-city housing, designed by and for the community. Whilst providing a testing ground for a new model of housing, this process would build on the advocacy around the right to adequate housing in the inner city for low-income residents.

This initial intervention could then be scaled up, through strengthening the ‘Precinct’ based approach to link potential affordable housing projects in Woodstock with each other, as well as with other projects in Cape Town. This will help achieve a ‘critical mass’ to help the project gain traction, possibly support cross-subsidies, and improve project viability given potential economies of scale.

Whilst this intervention is ambitious in scope, through starting small and embedding participatory design and planning processes as the fundamental basis of the work, collective intent can be built through the community strengthening their voice, and thus capacity to advocate for inclusive urban change.

This report concludes the first phase of the collaboration between ASF-UK and DAG and we hope provides a meaningful insight into the complexities of the struggles faced by residents of Woodstock and beyond, whilst also offering a range of ways forward.

For the partnership between ASF-UK and DAG, this workshop highlighted the need and potentials of participatory design in triggering critical urban learning, supporting social mobilisation with the aim to enhance the capacity of vulnerable groups to influence urban decision making processes. As a result, we aim to position the ASF-UK Change by Design methodology more closely within processes of critical urban pedagogy and popular education. Therefore, the next steps of partnership aim to conduct further action learning activities with a stronger focus on using design methodologies, in order to build the capacity of community groups to learn about their needs and aspirations, 122

and strengthen city-wide alliances and affect processes of urban change.

123

Activites from the DAG cafe, Observatory, Cape Town

References

Battersby-Lennard, J. & Haysom, G. (2012). ‘Philippi Horticultural Area: A City Asset or Potential Development Node?’, Report commissioned by Rooftops Canada Foundation Inc. – Foundation Abri International in partnership with the African Food Security Urban Network, April 2012.

Beukes, M. (2015). Shifting Views of Major Local Stakeholders in the Implementation of the MyCiTi Bus Services in Cape Town (2008-2014). Cape Town: University of the Western Cape.

Cage, C. (2012). Urban Participatory Planning (Practical Action Briefing). Rugby: Practical Action.

City of Cape Town. 2012. Cape Town Spatial Development Framework. [ONLINE] Available at:https://www.capetown.gov. za/en/sdf/Documents/Cape_Town_SDF_Report_ 2012.pdf.

[Accessed 28 August 2016].

City of Cape Town. 2011. Census: Woodstock 2011.

[ONLINE] Available at:https://www.capetown.gov.za/ en/stats/2011CensusSuburbs/2011 _Census _CT_ Suburb_ Woodstock_Profile.pdf. [Accessed 28 August 2016].

Development Action Group (2010). ‘A Place to Be: A Case Study of the Freedom Park Informal Settlement Upgrade. Cape Town: Development Action Group’. Available at http://www.dag.org. za/resources/case-studies.html [accessed 1 May 2016].

Development Action Group (2013). ‘Case Study on DAG’s 2012/13 Leadership Training Programme. Cape Town: Development Action Group’. Available at http://www.dag.org.za/resources/ case-studies.html [accessed 1 May 2016].

Drivdal, L. (2011). Report on Flooding in the Informal Settlement, ‘Egoli’, in Philippi / Schaapkraal, Cape Town, 2010 and 2011. Cape Town: University of Cape Town.

Drivdal, L. (2016). ‘Flooding in Cape Town’s Informal Settlements: Conditions for Community Leaders to Work towards Adaptation’, South African Geographical Journal 98 (1): 21-36.

126

Field, S. (2001). Lost Communities, Living Memories: Remembering Forced Removals in Cape Town. Cape Town: New Africa Books.

Glass, R. (1964). London: Aspects of Change, ed. Centre for Urban Studies. London: MacKibbon & Kee. Greater Tygerberg Partnership (2014). Voortrekker Road Corridor Regeneration Framework. Cape Town.

Hamdi, N. (2014). The Spacemaker’s Guide to Big Change.

London: Routledge.

Losch, A. & Moos, A. (2000): Land Invasion and Informal Settlement: A Case Study of Freedom Park, Tafelsig, Mitchells Plain, report prepared for the Legal Resources Centre.

Property 24. 2015. Can You Afford Property in Cape Town City Bowl?. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.property24. com/articles/can-you-afford-property-in-cape-town-citybowl/22941. [Accessed 28 August 2016].

Smith, N. (2002) ‘New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy’. Antipode 34 (3): 427-450.

Teppo, A. & M. Millstein (2015). ‘The Place of Gentrification in Cape Town’, in Lees, L. et al., Global Gentrifications. Uneven Development and Displacement. Bristol: Policy Press.

UNOHCHR. 2016. The right to adequate housing toolkit. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Housing/ toolkit/Pages/RighttoAdequateHousingToolkit.aspx. [Accessed 28 August 2016].

World Bank. 2016. GINI index (world bank estimate. [ONLINE] Available at:http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI. [Accessed 28 August 2016].

127

Colophon Change by Design Re-imagining regeneration through participatory design in Cape Town WORKSHOP REPORT (2015) Authors Architecture Sans Frontieres-UK: Alexandre Apsan Frediani Eleanor Bainbridge Jhono Bennett Ben Campkin Beatrice De Carli Matthew French Celia Macedo Julian Walker Development Action Group: Ayesha Issadeen Helen Macgregor-Rourke Willard Matiashe Claire du Trevou Editor & Publisher Eleanor Bainbridge Copy-editors Beatrice De Carli Paul Giladi Ayesha Issadeen Caitlin Nisos Graphic Design Eleanor Bainbridge Brunna Bianco Dourado Ayesha Issadeen Principle Photographers Paul Grendon Ayesha Issadeen

Collaborators Gustavo Briz Nkwame Cedile Annelies De Nijs Killian Doherty Yiping Dong Di Han Xieming Huan Loyiso Kaite Markus Kaltenbach Siphokazi Kwakweni Marian Macken Alke Misselhorn Zarina Nteta Helena Ohlsson Mariana Poli Gortan Zhao Qing Ignacio Rodríguez Irfan Safdag Matthias Schäfges Laura Sestieri Syazwani Shaharir Tatiana Southey-Bassols Chenxing Sun Marli Swart Vilde Vanberg Weiping Wang Lu Wei Minghuan Xie Chen Yu Luleke Zepe Li Zhaohan Zhao Zhe Bian Zhifan

The Authors, 2016. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior permission of the Authors.

Architecture Sans Frontières-UK Impact Hub Islington 5 Torrens Street London EC1V 1NQ, UK

This report outlines the findings of a two-week participatory design workshop undertaken by Architecture Sans Frontières-UK (ASF-UK) in partnership with Development Action Group (DAG) in Cape Town, South Africa, from April 7 to 17, 2015.

The workshop explored a projective diagnosis of how various stakeholders could act to create opportunities for inner-city affordable housing, and the challenges associated with this. The team of international participants, local experts and facilitators worked across four scales: Policy and Planning, Dwelling, Community and City, to unpack the complexities of the exclusion felt by the urban poor in Cape Town, and to start to build links towards collective action for change.