Failed Fantasies in a South African Context: the Case of Modderfontein, Johannesburg

Abstract

The (proposed) development of private sector-led, large-scale urban projects on the periphery of many African cities has drawn increased attention to the geographical breadth and potential consequences of the phenomena in recent years. This work demonstrates the speculative nature of many of these projects and their 'world-class city' aspirations, but also how such plans will exacerbate existing problems, including spatial inequality and environmental degradation. This paper, drawing on 50 interviews and extensive fieldwork, examines one such project in northeast Johannesburg, the Modderfontein New City. The paper responds to existing research and their calls for more grounded studies, and argues that given their distinct logics and developmental mechanisms, large-scale masterplanned edge cities can only truly be understood within the context of their place-specific urban landscapes, and that contrary to the prevailing arguments on this type of project, they do not always exist outside of ordinary governance structures. Supporting the (speculative) conclusions in earlier research, we demonstrate how the plans and early building looked to worsen spatial inequality and environmental problems. However, in highlighting how Modderfontein's failure is partly the product of a strong local state unwilling to compromise on their own agenda in the face of elite-driven edge city developments, we argue such large scale projects in Johannesburg face hitherto under-researched disciplining processes that can disrupt or even derail projects.

Below the Belt? Territory and Development in China's International Rise

“…Individual projects often legitimize their value by evoking the BRI although, in practice, success requires elite commitments that are tied to the wider development strategies of both China and the recipient state. Where such commitments are lacking, as illustrated in Brill and Reboredo's (2019) study of the Modderfontein new city in South Africa, then infrastructure projects are more likely to fail.…”

“…What the focus on enclaved forms of territory brings is a greater awareness of the multiplicity of actors engaged in the construction of territory, but also how these infrastructure nodes aimed at capturing value become embedded in multiple other social, political and economic logics. For example, SEZs became widespread in China as part of its own export‐driven industrialization and are now being set up in Africa and elsewhere (Brill and Reboredo, 2019; Giannecchini and Taylor, 2018; Oya, 2018). As forms of territory these zones have been treated as ‘spaces of exception’ (Arnold, 2012) where different — often draconian — rules apply and through which ‘variegated sovereignty’ (Ong, 2006) is exercised.…”

“…With regard to China's international strategy, Bach (2016) describes it as having an 'infrastructural foreign policy' in which '[t]he visibility of Chinese infrastructure financing is central to its global image'. But infrastructure investment is also a spatial fix for Chinese capitalism, by generating overseas markets in sectors where the large construction SOEs (Brill and Reboredo, 2019) face diminishing returns domestically while resource-seeking deals are often tied into infrastructure contracts. Thus, focusing on infrastructure necessarily involves other sectors and investments.…”

Transnational urbanism interrupted: A Chinese developer’s attempts to secure approval to build the ‘New York of Africa’ at Modderfontein, Johannesburg

“…A second and related concern of city officials was the kind of housing market planned for Modderfontein and whether this would generate financial segregation (also Brill and Reboredo, 2018). The expert input from Colliers International was that the price range for accommodation should be from R800,000 to R2.5m at 2015 prices (then around US $62,670 to US$195,860).…”

Appropriating rent from greenfield affordable housing: developer practices in Johannesburg

“…Nor have developers’ logics and practices been central to investigating Johannesburg’s experiences of ‘privatised urbanism’ (Dirsuweit and Schattauer, 2004; Herbert and Murray, 2015; cf. Brill and Reboredo, 2018; Goga, 2003). Beyond South Africa, a growing transnational literature explores how developers connect finance to land in context-specific, negotiated ways (Rouanet and Halbert, 2016).…”