Human Settlements Review - Parliamentary Monitoring Group

Human Settlements Review, Volume 1, Number 1, 2010
The Use Of Alternative Technologies In Low Cost
Housing Construction: Why The Slow Pace Of
Delivery
.
Chief Directorate: Research
National Department of Human Settlements
1 Introduction
The centrality of innovation in meeting the
housing needs of post-Apartheid South Africa
has been expressed through various pieces of
legislation and programmes. The most prominent
being the New Housing Policy and Strategy for
South Africa: White Paper of 1994 which states:
‘it is only by mobilising and harnessing the
full diversity of resources, innovation, energy
and initiative of individuals, communities, the
State and the broader private sector, that the
challenge can be met effectively’. Furthermore,
the Comprehensive Plan for the Development
of Sustainable Human Settlements approved
by Cabinet in 2004 put emphasis on innovation
particularly the use of alternative building
technologies as a means of responding to an
increasing need for adequate shelter. Although
many pilot projects on alternative building
technologies have been implemented since
1994, in the past five years the discourse on their
appropriateness, costing, availability, capacity,
skills need, etc. has increasingly gained currency
in the South African human settlements milieu.
In 2007 the National Home Building Regulation
Council (NHBRC) was mandated to explore
new designs that would provide a wider choice
of quality, aesthetically pleasing and affordable
housing. The resultant Eric Molobi Innovation Hub
in Soshanguve gave opportunity for innovators
to showcase alternative building technologies or
innovative systems. Following the establishment
of the Innovation Hub, provincial departments
made strides towards exploring alternative
building technologies in provincial housing
development projects.
In the past fifteen years, the provincial uptake
of alternative building technologies remained
slow and sporadic despite initiatives designed
to explore various technologies and the
promise that they could speedily help address
the housing backlog which currently stands at
over 2 million. Between 1994 and 2010 about
2.9 million housing units were delivered for low
income earners, however, research studies
conducted during the same period indicates
that only 17000 of these were constructed using
alternative building technologies or innovative
systems (NDoH, 2004; NDHS, 2010). In essence
alternative technologies only contributed 0.6% of
the total government housing delivery.
In 2003 the Department of Housing conducted a
study on the extent to which alternative building
technologies were used in low income housing
projects and the socio-economic impact of these
technologies on beneficiaries. The second
research conducted in 2008 focused primarily
on officials – it made an enquiry on reasons
there was limited implementation of alternative
building technologies.
266