More than twenty years after the repeal of the Group Areas Act: housing, spatial planning and urban development in post-apartheid South Africa

Abstract

More than twenty years after the repeal of the Group Areas Act, South Africa is facing a number of challenges with regards to housing, spatial planning and urban development. Government institutions, scholars, NGO's and local communities have been looking for innovative ways to improve the housing conditions of all South Africans. With this special issue, we aim to demonstrate that international insights cannot only be relevant to understand and enrich South African cases, but that an in-depth analysis of the South African experiments can also be meaningful for academic analyses and political decisions in other parts of the world. In order to stimulate such a cross-fertilization, this article will briefly summarize the current situation in South Africa in the public housing sector, the private housing sector and the self-help approach. We will also introduce the eight papers of this special issue.

A Century of South African Housing Acts 1920–2020

“…Much scholarly and professional critique of government policy and practice through subsidized housing developed since the Housing Act of 1997 (e.g. Bond and Tait 1997 ; Charlton and Kihato 2006 ; Huchzermeyer and Karam 2016 ; Myeni and Okem 2020a ; Newton and Schuermans 2013 ; Turok 2016 ). Criticism often focuses on failure to fulfil the promise of the ‘right to housing’ inscribed in Section 26 of the constitution (Tissington 2010 , 2011 ; Wilson et al 2015 ; Dugard et al 2016 ).…”

“…Planning and housing remain far from closely integrated (cf. Newton and Schuermans 2013 ), perpetuating something observed over a century. Whilst there are fears that ‘the current policy approach will continue to disguise capitalist agendas, which will benefit the rich suppliers of housing at the expense of the poor unhoused citizenry’, such concern coexists with anxiety that housing subsidy ‘simultaneously perpetuates a continued over-reliance on the welfarist developmental state – rather than alleviating poverty’ (Ojo-Aromokudu et al 2020 : 75, 61).…”

The Use of Mixed-Income Housing Development to Address Poverty and Inequality, Based on Delphi Empirical Approach: A Case of South Africa

“…Thus, very little was achieved as investment risks remained high (Goebel, 2007). Related literature assert that housing development should be on well-located mixed-use and mixed-income housing projects; that are championed by both the public and the private sector, so that sustainable communities can be realised (Newton & Schuermans, 2013). Encouraging more diverse forms of housing through well-structured housing programmes, paying more attention to social and affordable rental housing options is advocated for (Arthurson, 2002).…”

“…Free market models could not be introduced to address housing delivery challenges considering that at least half of the population were living in abject poverty (Wilkinson, 1998). As a result, a social approach was adopted to address poverty and inequality, an outcome of long term segregation and oppression, by providing government subsidised housing for the previously disadvantaged communities and individuals (Newton & Schuermans, 2013). To date there is at least an understanding that housing delivery goes beyond the provision of shelter only, but present opportunities that would otherwise never be realised without associated security and an opportunity for the poor to actively participate in the economy.…”

A role for housing in development: Using housing as a catalyst for development in South Africa

“…However, the potential is that once the development gains traction, private investment will follow the development of housing. While it must be recognised that there have been some state interventions, these have often been half-hearted and even fizzled out (Newton and Schuermans, 2013).…”