the gauteng spatial development framework - Gauteng Online

HARMONISING HOUSING PROVISION AND SUBSIDIES WITHTHE WIDER URBAN SYSTEM WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCETO THE BREAKING NEW GROUND (BNG) POLICYIt is clear that the provision of state and provincially subsidised housing for first-time homeowners who qualify for the once-off housing subsidy is accountable for a substantial amountof pressure to extend beyond the existing limits of the urban extent. One assumes that (a)the relatively lower cost of land in these peripheral areas makes the land component ofhousing delivery more affordable; (b) the assembly of extensive tracts of land at scale ismore easily achieved in these peripheral zones; and (c) the land in these areas is politicallyless contested than areas more embedded in the urban system where the not- in-my-backyard(NIMBY) syndrome is more prevalent.The issue, of course, is not new and has been debated vociferously since the transition.Much of the more recent Breaking New Ground (BNG) policy, in fact, seeks to redress this.Nevertheless, for as long as (a) housing provision continues to be seen as an element in itsown right only, and is considered in isolation of the urban system and its developmentalconsiderations as a whole; and (b) a 'one-size-fits-all' subsidy system persists, taking nocognisance of subsidy and policy harmonisation with other aspects of the urban system,such as transportation, for example, the issues and problems associated with marginalisedcommunities as driven by housing policy will remain intractable.The net result, however, whether intended or not, is spatially not acceptable. Equally, thesocio-economic consequences of this urban marginalisation, and the very real additionalcosts incurred by households in these areas, cannot be allowed to continue. Disproportionatelyhigher amounts of meagre incomes are spent on commuting relative to those elsewherein the urban system, and the costs of goods and services in these peripheral zones are, onbalance, higher. Social facilities, infrastructural services and amenities are also of lesserprovision and calibre and, at best, only the limited growth of a local economy is possibleunder these conditions of marginalisation.Not only does the urban structure fail, on these terms, to assimilate the marginalised poorinto the opportunities offered by the urban system, but the urban system itself also remainsunsustainable. Notwithstanding the high transport costs, for example, borne by households,the transportation subsidies incurred are also very high. Infrastructural services, socialfacilities and amenities are based on patterns of sprawled, low intensity urban expansionthat cannot be provided and maintained on a cost-effective basis. The mono-use patternsof urban development, notably extensive low-income housing, mean that no critical massand diversification of utility is possible, which similarly reduces the cost-effectiveness ofservice delivery.To be fair, one cannot simply ignore the very real problems associated with the NIMBYsyndrome, the difficulties of finding significant amounts of public land, and the cost of landin the better performing areas of the urban system. Yet it is precisely these areas wherebest advantage of the integration of low income housing into the urban system can andmust be gained. Again, however, the response to these difficulties cannot be a capitulationthat sees the very underpinnings of a sustainable urban system and the well-being of allthose in the city, particularly those who are the recipients of subsidised housing, beingcompromised. The leadership required to shape and direct a sustainable urban structure,and to accommodate the undoubted growth that is inevitably being targeted at the GCRin a positive way is a responsibility of Province that cannot be abrogated.The transformation of the urban structure of the GCR needs to directly challenge the basison which housing subsidies and delivery now takes place. Differentials in housing subsidiesmust be recognised by virtue of a favourable setting within the urban system from aneconomic opportunity point of view; the extent to which existing public transport systemscan be used or easily augmented; existing services can be used or easily augmented; existingsocial facilities can be used or easily augmented; and in which higher-density forms ofANNEXURE B: POLICY POSITION PAPERSGAUTENG SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 2011GAUTENG GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY138