The good and bad of the South African housing scene {writer: Piet Coetzer}

South Africa is one of the countries with the highest levels of home ownership in the world, according to data released in early September by Statistics SA.

At the same time, lack of adequate housing is said to be one of the main driving forces behind regularly recurring delivery protests.

In the City of Cape Town alone, there is a shortage of between 400 000 and 420 000 housing units and on average, every 10 households have seven other families living with them or in their backyards due to that shortage.

In eThekwini (Durban), the housing shortage last year stood at 190 000 units; while estimates for Tshwane put the shortage in the region of 330 000 units.

The proliferation of informal settlements in and around just about every urban or semi-urban area in the country also testifies to the fact that for a substantial part of the South African population, it is far from paradise on the housing front.

The apparently conflicting pictures presented by different sets of statistics can probably be explained by a difference in the angle from which housing statistics are being looked at and the fact that a high percentage of South Africans who do live in housing units, actually own those units.

The statistics also indicate that a fresh look is needed at the contribution that housing rental stock on a densified basis could make to alleviate the existing shortages.

According to Statistics SA’s General Household Survey (GHS) 2008, which was published this September, of the country’s 13.4 million households, 75.8% own or partly own a dwelling.

Indicating the extent to which progress on the housing front has been made, this compares with 63.3% in 2007 and 70.4% in 2002 – the year of the first survey.

In the United Kingdom, home ownership last year stood at 69.8%; in the United States it stood at 67.5%; and in Brazil it was 75%.

The growth in home ownership in South Africa is attributed to an increase in social grants and housing subsidies and other support measures such as free basic electricity and water.

Strong economic growth since 2002 has also helped the situation along.

From the delivery protests it is clear, however, that the present situation does not cater adequately for the poorer sectors of the community who could not afford to buy their own dwellings.

In the City of Cape Town, it is estimated that about two-thirds of 630 000 of its households can be classified as poor.

Gerry Adlard, a housing consultant at the African Centre for Cities, told the Cape Town housing portfolio committee recently that more than 70% of the city’s households have a monthly income of less than R6 400.

The economic slowdown has also slowed down the pace of progress of first-time home owners.

To try and deal with the situation, the City of Cape Town – with an estimated 18 000 growth in the number of households per year from natural growth and migration – is to take a leave out of China’s book.

The City is to pilot multi-storey housing developments. The city is planning “mini-towns” of around 5 000 to 6 000 housing units in blocks of between 12 and 14 storeys high, modeled on housing projects in Beijing. The projects would not only be developed close to existing public transport links, but would also provide for schools, churches and other community facilities.

This approach would also allow the City to densify human habitation on land closer to economic opportunities.

South Africa’s housing problems are also not unique and Adlard said that urbanisation was occurring faster in sub-Saharan Africa than in the rest of the world. If only 5% of the people coming into the cities could be housed, 85% of the African urban population would be in slums by 2030.

He also argued that provision of housing would not be enough to alleviate poverty.

The city’s attempts to prevent land invasions ‘at all costs’ were intensifying poverty, not relieving it.

A solution often proposed was to create high-density settlements with multiple-storey buildings. These were considered for poor households and built in overcrowded, poor suburbs and townships.

This creation of more rental stock, however, could be problematic if the tenants would not afford the rents. Also the buildings would need to be maintained, Aldard said.

He added that the council needed up to data information on poverty so it could develop a city-region perspective.

Land needed to be allocated fairly and realistically and, the city needed to consult with poor communities before finalising housing policies.

How difficult it could be to get hold of accurate data, was illustrated when the Department of Human Settlements appeared before the parliamentary portfolio committee.

Johan Minnie, the department’s chief director for management information services outlined the insufficiency of inaccuracy of statistics on housing.

Statistics from certain quarters reveal that the average household size in South Africa was 5.2 persons per household.

However, there were equally valid reports that put the average size at 5.2 persons per household.

He suggested that some provinces were better presenters of their work, made better use of the available money and were concentrating on delivery to those in need. In addition, certain municipalities could not execute their mandates with responsibility effectively.

The projects differed in size, suitability of areas, municipalities and provinces, all of which varied. A more analytical view of housing should be taken.

There should be a review of both the projects and project phases within the project. Certain projects had seemingly stopped, but this was in reality the change to another phase of that project or the introduction of a new phase and the project was continuing.

What was of ultimate importance, and impacted upon delivery of housing, was high quality of administration and management of the administration processes. Where there was an appreciation of this, together with a competent driver then housing projects were being completed satisfactorily, both as to time and quality, he said.

He emphasised that it was insufficient to have merely good intentions. Equally important was that the intended beneficiaries must be available. There were too many sad stories of houses being intended for certain persons and when the houses were completed and ready for handover the intended beneficiaries had passed away, relocated or occasionally secured employment and thus no longer qualified for the houses.

It was, he suggested, a more complicated situation or problem than was envisaged by critical persons who concentrate solely on their own agendas.

He also recommended an analytical approach in which there would be planning over a longer period, suggesting four to five years as the minimum, with stabilised planning over two to three years as a minimum period.

There was a concentration on the number of completed houses, viewed in isolation. He said that prior professional and construction costs and tasks were equally important.

By way of analogy he suggested that there was more to housing delivery than admiring the rooftops of completed houses. For houses, the foundations being excavated were as important a step in the housing provision of completed houses and their handover to the ultimate beneficiaries.

Collaboration between parties involved in the delivery of housing were equally important and to this effect a new management approach had been embarked where there would be alignment reviews quarterly and half yearly, and Performance Reviews at these intervals.

If any blockages were ascertained, task teams would be sent to clear away the blockages. He conceded that such an enhanced managerial approach would still be open to challenges, but the problems would be more quickly identified and attended to.

This new approach was termed the Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP). It was conceived as an early warning system and reports would be required on a monthly basis.

He said the remaining challenges were structural and service defects, building material supply problems, project management competency and above all skills. Another problem was the transfer of land ownership.