SPATIAL PROPOSALS Future Housing Provision Principles · 2017-10-31 · Based on the Emerging Development Principles for future housing provision as listed above, as well as guidelines

SPATIAL PROPOSALS

Future Housing Provision Principles

Table 21 below summarises the existing development principles as contained in the City’s Growth

and Development Strategy and Growth Management Strategy respectively, as well as the proposed

Emerging SHSUP Development Principles which should underpin the provision of all future housing in

the City of Joburg:

Table 21: Summary of the Development Principles

Growth and Development Strategy (GDS)

Building sustainable human settlements;

Building and growing an inclusive economy;

Eradicating poverty;

Ensuring resource security and environmental sustainability;

Promoting good governance

Growth Management Strategy (GMS)

A strong link between public transport and residential and business development;

Land assimilation for the public good and the location of new housing aligned to these spatial priorities;

A range of new mechanisms to influence patterns and pace of development within the City;

A strong emphasis on demand management prioritisation, clear targeting and programming of CAPEX and OPEX expenditure;

A strong emphasis on Demand Management re: resources;

More effective monitoring, evaluation and assessment.

Emerging SHSUP Development Principles

Promote job creation and local economic development in all parts of the City;

Build on existing/natural occurring local economies (e.g. Alex);

Facilitate economic growth through the use of public assets and systems;

Promote urban transformation through new housing initiatives intended to grow local economies in previously marginalised areas (creating critical mass);

Make optimal use of existing infrastructure or areas where infrastructure can be sensibly upgraded, as well as resources like well-located vacant land;

Focus on areas where social infrastructure and services already exist or where capacity has become available;

Provide and extend access to public transport and let public transport capacity guide the search for possible housing;

Areas that are well-located in terms of their ‘urban fundamentals’ and can accommodate new housing initiatives must be transformed to do so;

Well-located, well-served, mixed-use, higher-intensity inner-city areas are well suited to accommodating complex socio-economic profiles and must form part of Strategic Areas identified;

Significant delivery targets in terms of density, typology and financing structures must be achieved on small land parcels;

Facilitate the creation of quality, high density small and large scale accommodation catering for the full spectrum of income groups;

Facilitate vertical growth to accommodate the complexity of mixed uses and diverse typologies;

Curb costly urban sprawl;

Acknowledge and manage informality within human settlements through responsive planning;

Build on social networks / local support systems / safety nets (community one of the strongest coping mechanisms);

Use housing development as a catalyst for social transformation;

Maintain environmental responsibility and sustainability;

Facilitate a broad spectrum of financing options to assist movement up the housing ladder;

Create an enabling environment together with the development of incentives to leverage private resources and to achieve better use of public funds for sustainable livelihoods;

Build on existing institutional capacity within the City.

Identification of Strategic Areas

Based on the Emerging Development Principles for future housing provision as listed above, as well

as guidelines contained in the City’s Spatial Development Framework, Growth Management Strategy,

and the Growth and Development Strategy, the areas as spatially depicted on Map 16 were identified

as Strategic Areas. These should be considered as priority areas for housing provision (high, middle

and low income) in the City over the next two decades (up to 2030) as these comply to the Emerging

Development Principles as set out above. Each of the Strategic Areas were analysed and assessed in

terms of compliance with a range of criteria as illustrated below:

This set of spatial criteria is deemed to be critical to achieve the desired “sustainable” form. The

results of this assessment give an indication of the type of intervention required to provide the urban

form in order to achieve a Sustainable Human Settlement. The full evaluation methodology and

results are contained in Annexure D of this document. Based on the outcome of the evaluation

process, the number and spatial extent of the Strategic Areas as reflected on Map 16 were finalised.

The Strategic Areas identified are divided into five main categories, each comprising one or more sub-

categories. Table 22 provides a brief summary of each of the five main categories and their

respective sub-categories, as well as the main characteristics of each of the Strategic Areas. The five

main categories include:

- Priority Public Transport Network Areas which include TOD Nodes, Priority BRT Routes,

and Mixed Use Nodes functionally linked to the Priority Public Transport Network. The Mixed

Use Nodes also include five Mixed Use Nodes which are currently not directly linked to the

Priority Public Transport Network (refer to Map 16.1);

- Existing Housing Project Areas which represent areas for which the planning and/or

implementation of housing projects are already far advanced (Map 16.2);

- Redevelopment Areas which represent old, well-located residential and business areas

suitable to accommodate redevelopment (Map 16.3);

- City Region Consolidation and Infill Areas are well-located, large vacant land parcels

which, if developed, would represent infill development and consolidation of the urban fabric

in the context of both the City of Joburg and Gauteng City Region. This category includes

land parcels in the mining belt and the North-Eastern Infill Areas (Map 16.3);

- Proposed Expansion Areas include areas currently earmarked for future expansion of the

City in terms of the GMS/SDF, or expansion areas targeted by the Department of Housing for

development in the medium to longer term. There are no approved housing projects for these

areas as yet (Map 16.4).

Table 22: Strategic Areas Characteristics Summary

Strategic Area Characteristics/Comments Areas to be included

1. Public Transport Priority Areas

- TOD Stations (PRASA and Gautrain) - Priority BRT Routes - Mixed Use Nodes - Mixed Use Nodes not linked to

Priority Public Transport Network

Fundamental to current policy imperatives (SDF, GMS).

Centrally located in City.

Links to most areas of social and economic activity.

Housing development will enhance viability of public transport infrastructure investment.

Provides opportunities for infill development/densification and redevelopment.

These are priority areas for engineering services maintenance and upgrading.

Nodes, stations and BRT routes in southern extremities of CoJ would require supplementary regional investments to enhance urban potential.

All commuter railway stations.

Areas around priority BRT routes.

Areas around Gautrain stations.

All mixed use nodes in the City linked to the priority public transport network as well as four nodes of strategic significance which could be incorporated into the priority public transport network in future.

2. Existing Housing Projects

- Vacant Land Parcels (North) - Vacant Land Parcels (South)

Projects already approved and underway.

Informal settlement communities already identified as beneficiaries.

Contribute towards Eradication of Informal Settlements Programme.

Housing Plan projects approved in northern parts of City.

Housing Plan projects approved in southern parts of City.

3. Redevelopment Areas

- Southern Suburbs Well-located relative to Inner City.

Area ready for redevelopment.

Falling outside the Priority Public Transport Network footprint.

Could facilitate densification and mixed income development while redeveloping.

Southern Suburbs, including Ormonde, Booysens, Turffontein, Rosettenville and South Hills. (Area between the M2 and N12 freeways).

4. City Region Consolidation and Infill Areas

- CoJ Mining Belt

- North Eastern Infill Areas

Large vacant land parcels well-located in City and City Region context.

Private sector already active in many of these areas.

Some land parcels are under public ownership.

Represent large scale opportunities to create “new towns in town” and consolidating the regional urban fabric.

Entire mining belt of the CoJ.

Strategic land parcels at Huddle Park, Rietfontein Hospital, Linbro Park, Frankenwald, Waterfall City, Modderfontein, President Park/Glen Austin/Austin View, Leeuwkop Prison

5. Expansion Areas

- Planned/proposed expansion areas (north)

- Planned/proposed expansion areas (south)

Sites targeted for development due to proximity to existing informal settlements.

Generally form part of Expansion Areas as identified in CoJ GMS, and thus fall within Urban Development Boundary.

Planning still at early stage and can thus be reversed. Projects not approved.

Mostly located on the urban periphery.

Expansion Areas northern parts of the City.

Expansion Areas southern parts of the City.

The following section provides more background to the areas identified: (The detailed list of areas

included under each of the categories and sub-categories are included in Annexure E of this

document).

Priority Public Transport Network Areas

In terms of the City’s Spatial Development Framework and Growth Management Strategy, the areas

around the Priority Public Transport Network, including the Mixed Use Nodes falling within the

footprint of the Priority Public Transport Network should be classified as high priority areas to promote

new housing development, infill development and redevelopment. This includes the areas around all

commuter railway stations and Gautrain stations, the priority sections of the BRT network, as well as

Mixed Use Nodes linked to the Priority Public Transport Network. By their nature the Mixed Use

Nodes represent a combination of residential, economic and social facilities and activities and are

thus ideal to promote residential densification and infill development.

Full utilisation of all development opportunities in this area will not only ensure maximum cost-benefit

ratio for infrastructure investment by the City, but it will also enhance the economic and financial

viability of the public transport and social services provided in these areas.

Five mixed use nodes which are not currently linked to the priority public transport network but which

are of strategic significance to the City were also added to this category. These include Constantia,

Northgate, Fourways, Sloane and Midrand.

Existing Housing Project Areas

At present there are several large scale public and private sector housing projects underway in the

City. These projects have already been approved/far advanced and therefore these were included as

Strategic Areas which will cater for part of the housing demand in the City over the next two decades.

Redevelopment Areas

There are several well-located, older residential and business areas in the City which are suitable to

accommodate redevelopment, and more specifically densification through redevelopment. Priority

areas considered in this regard include the following:

- Western suburbs north of the mining belt including Mayfair, Vrededorp, Pageview, Westbury,

Claremont, Maraisburg, Florida, Hamberg, Roodepoort, Witpoortjie and Princess.

- Eastern Suburbs north of the mining belt which include Jeppestown, Malvern and up to

Cleveland.

- North-eastern suburbs of the CoJ along the proposed amended BRT route (Louis Botha

Avenue desire line) through suburbs such as Yeoville, Berea, Orange Grove, Waverley,

Bramley and up to Alexandra.

- North-western suburbs of the City along the proposed BRT routes, Jan Smuts Avenue, Barry

Hertzog Avenue, and Beyers Naude Drive and passing through suburbs such as Craighall

Park, Melville, Emmerentia, Linden, Northcliff and Blackheath.

All the areas referred to above fall within the Priority Public Transport Network Strategic Area and are

thus being dealt with under either the BRT routes or the TOD stations as discussed in section 7.2.1

above.

- The residential suburbs adjacent to the south of the Joburg Inner City which include areas like

Ormonde, Booysens, Turffontein, Rosettenville and South Hills.

This is the only Redevelopment Area considered which does not form part of the Priority Strategic

Public Transport Network, and it was thus listed under the Redevelopment Area category.

City Region Consolidation and Infill Areas

a) Mining Belt Area

Historically, the mining belt of the City of Joburg served as a buffer strip which segregated

communities to the north and south thereof from one another under the Apartheid dispensation. As

mining activity in this belt scaled down significantly over the past two decades, there is renewed

interest to redevelop parts of this well-located land as and where technically possible.

The western end of the mining belt in the area between Soweto, Roodepoort and Witpoortjie has

attracted a large amount of public and private sector interest over the past few years, and at present

there are housing initiatives underway in this part of the mining belt totalling about 16,000 housing

units (mostly RDP), with an additional 10,000 units being planned for the medium to longer term.

The mining belt is located parallel to the south of the east-west commuter railway line of the City of

Joburg and it is in close proximity to a number of prominent activity areas, including Roodepoort CBD,

Florida CBD, Maraisburg, Industria, Langlaagte, the CoJ Inner City, Selby, and City Deep.

Although it does not hold extensive infrastructure, and it is fairly inaccessible (north-south and east-

west), it represents a major opportunity for consolidation and infill development in metropolitan

context. The development of this area would not only provide a significant amount of housing

opportunities closer to job opportunities and infrastructure, but it will also fill the historic gaps in the

urban fabric and contribute towards the physical, social and economic integration of historically

segregated communities in the City of Joburg.

b) North Eastern Infill Areas

In City Region context the large pockets of vacant land and low intensity development in the north-

eastern suburbs of the City of Joburg pose an enormous opportunity for focused housing

development.

The strategic significance of these land parcels stems from the fact that these parcels are located

within the Core Economic Triangle of Gauteng Province defined by the Tshwane Inner City to the

north, Sandton and Joburg CBDs towards the south-west; and OR Tambo Airport-Kempton Park CBD

towards the south-east.

The three legs of this triangle are defined by the N1, R21 and R24 freeways while Gautrain and the

PRASA commuter railway line between Tshwane, Ekurhuleni and Joburg are also located within this

area.

Several large scale private developments are already underway in the area, including the

Modderfontein and Waterfall City developments, both of which also make provision for a number of

affordable housing units.

The North-Eastern Infill Areas also include strategically located low intensity uses like agricultural

holdings and associated rural residential activities in Linbro Park, President Park, Glen Austen and

Austin View which pose opportunities for incremental densification and infill development over a

period of time. Bulk services are at present very limited in most of these areas.

This category also includes a number of well-located vacant land parcels like Huddle Park to the

south, Frankenwald to the north of Alexandra, and the majority part of the Leeuwkop prison site to the

north of Rivonia. The Huddle Park and the Leeuwkop Prison sites are publicly owned.

Expansion Areas

This category of land mostly falls within the Urban Development Boundary of the City of Joburg and is

earmarked as Expansion Areas in the CoJ Growth Management Strategy.

Many of these land parcels are currently earmarked for future housing by the Gauteng and Joburg

Departments of Housing due to their close proximity to informal settlements, but the land is still under

investigation and there are no approved projects as yet on any of these.

HOUSING DEMAND AND SUPPLY OPPORTUNITIES MODEL

Introduction

The primary aim of the Housing Demand and Supply Opportunities Model is to enable the City to

understand what type of housing should be, and could be supplied in various Strategic Areas (as

identified during Phase 2 of the study) in the City.

Supplementary to the above, the model also provide information pertaining to the following:

the total number of housing units (low, middle and high) that can be developed in each of the

Strategic Areas;

the desired mix of housing typologies to be developed per Strategic Area;

the expected mix of tenure options per Strategic Area;

the estimated development cost per unit, per typology to be developed in each Strategic Area;

an indication of the potential contribution/participation of the public and private sectors

respectively in development in the Strategic Area; and

an indication of the implications in terms of community facilities required should the Strategic

Areas be developed according to the specific scenario selected.

Design of the Demand and Supply Opportunities Model

The guidelines highlighted above were used to design the Demand and Supply Opportunities Model

as conceptually depicted in Figure 17 (see overleaf) and described as follow:

Firstly, the model was structured in accordance with each of the five main categories of Strategic

Areas as reflected in Figure 17, with a separate spreadsheet for each of the eleven Strategic

Area sub-categories as listed below:

- Mixed Use Nodes within Priority Public Transport Network Area;

- Mixed Use Nodes outside Priority Public Transport Network Area;

- Priority BRT Routes;

- Railway Stations and Gautrain stations;

- Existing Housing Projects North;

- Existing Housing Projects South;

- Redevelopment Priority Areas;

- Mining Belt Areas;

- North Eastern Consolidation and Infill Areas;

- Expansion Areas North; and

- Expansion Areas South.

Strategic Area Developable Area

Low Middle High Low Middle High

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 Short

Term

Medium

Term

Long

Term

Short

Term

Medium

Term

Long

Term

Short

Term

Medium

Term

Long

Term

Public Transport Priority Network

TOD Stations

BRT Routes

Mixed use Nodes

Mixed Use Nodes (Outside)

Current Housing Project Areas

Existing Projects North

Existing Projects South

Redevelopment Areas

Southern Suburbs

Consolidation and Infill Areas

Mining Belt

North Eastern Suburbs

Expansion Areas

Expansion Areas North

Expansion Areas South

Priority/Phasing

Low Middle High

Income Distribution

Low

Housing Typology Composition

Middle High

Total Yield

Figure 17: Demand and Supply Opportunities Model: Concept

Strategic Area Developable Area Total Cost

Low MiddleHigh Education Health Safety Postal Municipal

Full Rental Full Rental Full Rental Public Private Public Private Public Private

Public Transport Priority Network

TOD Stations

BRT Routes

Mixed use Nodes

Mixed Use Nodes (Outside)

Current Housing Project Areas

Existing Projects North

Existing Projects South

Redevelopment Areas

Southern Suburbs

Consolidation and Infill Areas

Mining Belt

North Eastern Suburbs

Expansion Areas

Expansion Areas North

Expansion Areas South

Total Cost Tenure Split Public/Private Involvement Community Facilities

Low Middle High Low Middle High

The list of areas included under each of these sub-categories is included in Annexure A of this

document.

Where a railway station or Gautrain station is located within a mixed use node, the development

potential around the station was included under the development potential of the node and the

station is thus not listed under the TOD stations sub-category.

For each of the Strategic Area sub-categories identified the model then comprise the following

information in a series of columns as depicted in Figure 17:

Developable Area: The total developable/redevelopable land area per precinct as

measured/calculated/estimated based on a variety of sources e.g. existing precinct plans, aerial

photography, existing databases of the CoJ etc. Map 17 reflects the exact footprints of the

“developable” portions of the various Strategic Areas following from this process. (Compare to

Map 16 which conceptually demarcated the various Strategic Areas). Map 17.1 shows in greater

detail the demarcation of the “developable” area in the Modderfontein area.

Income Distribution: The desired/proposed income composition (low income, middle income

and high income) for future development on land identified in the precinct (as a scenario). This

allocation was partially informed by the market profile compiled for each of the Strategic Areas as

summarised in Annexure F of this document.

Housing Typology Composition: With the income split determined, a proposed housing

typology composition per income category was assigned to each of the areas (as a scenario).

Each income category has a range of housing typologies as illustrated on Tables 23.1, 23.2, and

23.3. For each of the housing typologies these library tables provide a range of supplementary

information like the required erf configuration and area; gross density (du/ha); unit size;

coverage; building height; tenure options; subsidy/funding options; approximate unit cost and

approximate infrastructure cost. The library tables are functionally linked to the model and

provide the quantitative inputs per housing typology into the model. Changes to these tables are

thus automatically transferred to the model and change the scenario and the subsequent results

contained in the model.

A more comprehensive qualitative description of the different housing typologies under each

income category with illustrations are included in Annexure G of this document.

Total Yield: Based on the land area available, the assigned income split, and the range of

housing typologies selected per income category (more specifically the average density per

housing typology), a total residential yield per Strategic Area, per income category, and per

housing typology was then determined (this represents a specific Scenario and could be

changed infinitely).

It should be noted that the total developable area was subjected to an iterative Land Use Budget

process as illustrated in Table 24 which calculated the number of residential units according to

the proposed residential composition per income category assigned to the area, while

simultaneously calculating the land area required to provide social facilities, economic activities

(retail and office), as well as streets and open space to service the resulting number of residential

units in a sustainable manner.

Table 24: Land Use Budget Process Example

Priority/Phasing: This section indicates the proposed/potential number of units per income

category to be delivered in the short, medium and long term respectively. This allocation is purely

based on an assessment of the current status of planning/implementation in the various Strategic

Areas e.g. current housing projects can theoretically deliver housing units in the short term (next

five years), while mining belt precincts where extensive preparatory work still needs to be done

LAND USE BUDGET MODEL - (DRAFT REV 3 2012-05-01)CONSOLIDATION AND INFILL AREAS:

NORTH EASTERN SUBURBSModderfontein

LAND USE

no ha %

BASE DATA

Residential ha 523.0 25%

Density du/ha (net) 103

Dwelling Units 53 650

Population 166 315

Education 74.9 4%

Primary 30.5 73.3

Secondary 3.0 13.8

Creche 33.3 1.7

Business 199 578 66.5 3%

Local retail centre (floor area in m²) 66526 22.2

Neighbourhood retail centre 66526 22.2

Community, small regional retail centre (floor area in m²) 66526 22.2

199578

Offices (floor area in m²) 19958 6.7 0%

Community Facilities 16.0 1%

Religious places 46.2 6.9

Clinic 16.6 3.3

Post Office 15.1 0.8

Police 6.7 0.7

Community Centre 5.4 1.6

Municipal Office / Pay Point 3.3 1.0

Library 16.6 3.3

Open Space 978.8 46%

Active 76.4

Passive 902.4

Cemetery

Industrial

Street 449.8 21%

TOTAL 2115.6 100%

% 9

may only start delivering in the medium term (five to ten years), or the long term (beyond ten

years).

Total Cost: An indication of the average total cost per area, per income category which

represents the cost for the top structure and engineering services per housing typology. The

infrastructure cost includes cost to bring services to individual erven.

Tenure Split: A summary of the potential tenure composition (rental vs full ownership), per

income category, per area, based on the housing typologies allocated, and the tenure split

allocated in terms of the specific scenario.

Public-Private Involvement: An indication of the potential for public and private sector

involvement/ contribution per income category per area.

Community Facilities and Cost: An indication of the total number of community facilities

required to serve the estimated residential yield per area, as well as the total estimated cost

associated with the construction of such community facilities. The standards applied in terms of

the community facility requirements are summarised in Table 25.

Assumptions for Base Scenario

With the Demand and Supply Opportunities Model designed and populated with basic information, the

next step was to define the “Base Scenario” and its associated variables/development parameters to

run as a first iteration to the modelling exercise. It comprised the following components:

Land Availability

Below is a brief summary of the approach followed in determining the land available for development

in each of the Strategic Areas as well as the assumptions made (where relevant):

Mixed Use Nodes and BRT Routes

All vacant or current low intensity land use areas within the mixed use node were demarcated

and measured.

Compared land parcels identified with existing local SDF’s and zoning maps to assess

compatibility.

Finalised total developable area per node/BRT route.

Base Scenario Assumption: In Mixed Use Nodes 50% of total developable area was used, and

along BRT routes only 20%. In nodal areas like Baralink, Kliptown, Jabulani and Lenasia the

percentage developable land was adjusted in accordance with known residential yields for these

areas.

Nodes and BRT routes were not subjected to Land Use Budget as these areas represent

densification within developed areas.

Table 25: Joburg: Standards Used in Land Use Budget

USE STANDARD AREA PER FACILITY SourceReligious Places 1/3 600 people 1 500 m² Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and Design

Clinic 1/10 000 people 2 000 m² Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and Design

Community Centre 1/10 000 people Minimum erf size is 3 000m² Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and Design

Library 5 000 - 50 000 people 2 000 m² Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and Design

Municipal Offices / Pay point 1/50 000 people Minimum erf size is 3 000m² Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and Design

Post Office 1/11 000 people Minimum erf size is 500m² Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and Design

Police Station 1/25 000 people Varies between 1 000 m² and 1 ha Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and Design

Primary School

24% of population is of school going

age of which 65% go to primary

school @ 850/school, and 2.4 ha

PLAN Associates, Guidelines for Human Settlement

Planning and Design

Secondary School

35% to secondary school @

1500/school 4.6 ha

PLAN Associates, Guidelines for Human Settlement

Planning and Design

Creche 1/5 000 people 5 00m² Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and Design

Source: PLAN ASSOCIATES, 2012

TOD Stations

Land availability figures around each of the railway stations as determined from the City’s Growth

Management Strategy were used as point of departure. In cases where a more detailed precinct

plan for a station exists, the potential residential yield as depicted in the precinct plan was used.

The land use budget process was applied to all station precincts.

Short Term Housing Project Areas

Measured demarcated development areas and used 100% of developable land except in cases

like Kya Sands, Lehae and Thembelihle where known yields were significantly smaller than

yields based on land size. In these cases developable area was adjusted to be aligned with

known yields.

Mining Belt

Mining Belt precincts include the existing housing projects located in this Strategic Area, as well

as the 24 precincts identified in the mining belt.

Base Scenario Assumption: Only 50% of total demarcated area of the 24 precincts was used.

North Eastern Consolidation and Infill Areas

Footprint of each area was demarcated and measured.

Compared land parcels identified with local SDFs/Framework Plans to determine developable

land area.

Areas with known yields like Waterfall City, Modderfontein and Linbro Park were broadly

balanced off to the known yields as described in Local Spatial Frameworks.

Land use budget process was applied.

Redevelopment Areas

Incorporated footprints of existing housing projects located within this area e.g. South Hills,

Glenesk etc.

Base Scenario Assumption: Assumed that 50% of this land would be developable.

For the remainder of the Redevelopment Area 5% of the total area was allocated for

redevelopment purposes.

Land use budget process as described above was then applied.

Existing Projects North and South and Expansion Areas North and South

Footprint of each area was demarcated and measured.

Compared land parcels identified with Local SDFs/Framework Plans to determine developable

land area.

Land use budget process as described above was then applied.

Income Group Allocation

The next step was to allocate a Base Scenario income distribution to each of the areas identified

as summarised in Table 26. The process was also partly informed by the market analysis

conducted for each of the Strategic Areas as summarised in Annexure F.

Table 26: Assumptions for Base Scenario: Income Composition per Strategic Area

Strategic Area Low Income

Middle Income

High Income

Public Transport Priority Areas

Mixed Use/Nodes

Northern suburbs mixed use nodes 10 20 70

Southern suburbs mixed use nodes 30 60 10

TOD Stations

Western link (Joburg to Witpoortjie) 40 60

Eastern link (Joburg to Cleveland) 40 60

Southern lines (Mining belt and townships) 60 40

Marlboro and Midrand Gautrain stations 30 60 10

BRT Routes

Northern and north-western suburbs 10 20 70

North-eastern strip (Joburg-Alexandra) 30 70

Eastern strip (Joburg-Eastgate) 30 70

Southern suburbs (Soweto) 60 40

Existing Housing Projects

Existing Housing Projects North and South

70 30

Consolidation and Infill Areas North-Eastern Suburbs

Waterfall City 64 36

Modderfontein 30 40 30

Linbro Park 20 60 20

Frankenwald 40 60

President Park/Austin View/Glen Austin 40 60

Huddle Park 60 20 20

Leeuwkop Prison 40 60

Mining Belt Area

Mining Belt Precincts

60 40

Redevelopment Areas Remainder Southern Redevelopment Area 20 70 10

Existing Housing Projects 70 20 10

Expansion Areas

Lanseria Node 10 50 40

Eastern Expansion Area 30 70

Olievenhoutbosch South 50 50

Remainder of Central Expansion Area (Steyn City) 30 70

Zoo Farm 10 50 40

Naturena, Fun Valley, Syferfontein 60 30 10

The northern Mixed Use Nodes still comprise a strong high income component (70%) but

provision is made for at least 10% of low income housing in all these areas. In the southern

Mixed Use Nodes the low income (30%) and middle income (60%) components are higher with

only 10% being catered for in the high income category.

Along the eastern and western rail links it is envisaged that a strong middle income component

(60%) with a fairly significant low income percentage (40%) could occur. It is deemed unlikely

that these areas will attract any significant high income developments.

Along the southern rail sections the low income component is even higher (60%), with 40%

allocated to middle income.

Around the Midrand and Marlboro Gautrain stations provision is made for a high income

component (10%), but the majority part is allocated to middle income (60%). Low income is also

strongly represented at about 30%.

For the BRT routes serving the northern suburbs the profile is similar to that assigned to the

northern Mixed Use Nodes as noted under the second bullet above.

It is envisaged that the north-eastern BRT route (Joburg-Alexandra) as well as the Joburg

Eastgate route could attract predominantly middle income (70%) with a significant low income

component (30%).

In the southern suburbs more weight is assigned to the lower income group (60%),

supplemented with 40% in the middle income category.

As far as existing housing project areas are concerned, a 70:30 split between low and middle

income was made. In reality the split will probably be closer to 90:10.

In the Consolidation and Infill Areas (North-eastern Suburbs) all income categories are well

represented. The high income category is strongest represented in the Waterfall City and

Modderfontein areas, while the low income ranges between 20% in areas like Linbro Park

(current proposals) and the Leeuwkop Prison, to 40% in areas like President Park, Austin View

and Glen Austin; and up to 60% in Huddle Park (current proposals).

The middle income group is well represented in all these areas.

In the mining belt area provision is made for about 40% middle income (higher density multi-

storey units) and 60% low income.

It is anticipated that the Southern Redevelopment Area holds potential for about 10% future high

income development, 70% middle income, and 30% low income. A number of projects have

already been identified/approved for low income in this area and for these areas a 70:20:10 ratio

has been selected.

In the Eastern Expansion Area no provision is made for low income development as the low

income component in this functional area is already catered for in the Olievenhoutbos South

precinct adjacent to the north thereof.

The same principle applies to the Remainder of the Central Expansion Area because most of the

low income is already taken up in the existing Diepsloot South and Diepsloot East projects to the

north thereof.

The Lanseria Node holds an estimated capacity of about 31,000 units of which the majority part

will be middle (50%) and high income (40%). Limited provision is made for low income (10%) as

the Lion Park project catering for low income is located directly adjacent to the south.

In the Southern Expansion Areas the majority weight was allocated to the low income category

(60%), followed by 30% middle income, and 10% high income.

Housing Typology Allocation

Following from the above broad allocation of low, middle and high income housing to each of the

areas, the proposed housing typology composition per income category per strategic area was

defined for the Base Scenario as depicted in Tables 27.1 to 27.11.

8.3.3.1 Selection Criteria: Housing Typologies

The SHSUP encourages the following two approaches to housing delivery towards a transformative

model:

Through non-housing incentives, creating an enabling environment – the City should provide

support to all households in all settlements to improve the value and performance of the quality

of their housing

Through selected housing typologies – the delivery of subsidised housing continues to be an

important component of the City’s urbanization plan.

The selection criteria below deals only with those mechanisms that have a spatial implication for new,

existing or infill projects.

a) Non-Housing Incentives

A provision within the FLISP-subsidy, implemented by the NHFC, allows households earning between

R3,500 – R7,000 to access a serviced site for free from the municipality instead of the subsidy

amount. Households who access this subsidy do not need to also qualify for mortgage finance, which

means that they could presumably access a microloan or pension-backed loan to finance an

incremental housing process on their stand.

Therefore, the delivery of serviced stands for this purpose is a potentially important area for strategic

intervention by the City. Since this intervention has a spatial implication, it is included as “Typology

0” and is seen as a non-housing intervention that needs to be taken into consideration by the City.

Additional non-housing incentives that have to do with existing environments are expanded on as part

of Phase 4 of this document.

b) Housing Typologies

The criteria for the selection of housing typologies are set out below. The approach to the selection is

transformative: towards much higher densities and alternative typologies. The series of typologies is

not prescriptive and is intended to be robust enough to allow for site specific interpretation. The

housing typologies were selected to allow for a wide range of architectural and urban responses to

ensure that housing can act as building blocks for sustainability.

Where detailed typology allocations have already been developed for a particular precinct e.g. the

Kliptown Precinct, these should take preference, if it is in line with the criteria as set out below. If not,

such typologies should be modified to suit the criteria as set out below.

The following criteria were used to inform the selection, based on the SHS themes:

Spatial

- Higher densities

- Good urban form and urban guidelines

Economic and Institutional

- Cost:

o Effectiveness

o The resale market

o Housing subsidy qualification

o Affordable products

- Encouragement of Incremental growth

Social

- Inclusionary Housing

- Varied housing products

- Backyard Rental

Environmental

- Generic guidelines were prepared to guide all housing development. These do not form part

of the selection criteria as all new developments will have to adhere to such guidelines. These

are part of Annexure G.

Each of these criteria is next discussed in greater detail below.

i) Density

The proposed densities for the SHSUP are higher than the suggested nodal density guidelines as set

out in the SDF (2010-2011) Table 5.18. The City of Johannesburg supports higher densities and

suggests several aspects that have to be addressed when applying for a higher density (SDF 2010-

2011, p.130). Table 5.22 sets out the densities for subsidised housing to be between 40 – 300du/Ha

(SDF 2010-2011, p. 138).

The proposed densities in this document are not mandatory and will be determined by site specifics,

for example availability of infrastructure, access, natural features on and around the site, social

infrastructure etc. However, lack of infrastructure should not be taken as the only criteria for

determining density. The capacity of infrastructure, or lack thereof, should be proven. It is believed

that a lot of latent capacity exists within the existing urban fabric which makes infill projects more

sustainable.

- The following table summarizes the categorization of densities for this SHSUP:

LOW 0-40du/ha

MEDIUM 41-100du/ha

HIGH 100-180du/ha

VERY HIGH 181 + du/ha

- As far as possible, medium to higher densities are encouraged in the Base Scenario to limit low

density urban sprawl. Densification should be informed by utility service capacities; social

dynamics; impacts on existing developments and open space; and vacant or under-used land.

- Higher densities should be located around specific activity routes, around the intersection of

transport routes, and around interchange points between different modes of transport.

- Vacant and under-used well-located land and inner city areas must be used to their full potential

to transform the urban environment, and thus improve the social and economic situations of city

dwellers.

- Densification should not be imposed on existing areas with under- and unused land. (Tonkin,

2008:56)

- Low densities (<40du/ha) are excluded from the selection as efficient and viable public

transportation and local economic development cannot be provided.

- A prerequisite for the feasibility for higher densities would be proximity to social amenities and

access to public transport.

ii) Urban Form

As far as possible typologies that encourage good urban form (refer to the generic urban design

guidelines) were selected, departing from low density one-house-on-a-stand typology. Design

principles such as the creation of a sense of place, optimising the use of site, public and private

thresholds, street interface, scale, infrastructure distribution and defensible space will therefore guide

development. Urban design guidelines were developed to guide housing developments.

iii) Cost

Cost Effectiveness: Cost effective layouts, minimum frontages, sharing of water and sewerage

connections, grouping of units and the pedestrian network along with reduced road widths are all

measures to save costs. Increased densities offset high land costs. (Tonkin, 2008:86)

Therefore typologies that respond to cost effectiveness were selected as far as possible, also

resulting in the choice for higher densities.

Resale market: To encourage products in the resale market that would be affordable for households

in the gap of earning too much to qualify for the subsidy and too little to afford cheapest newly built

house available, home improvements are encouraged through rates incentives for extensions and

have been captured in the typology mix through erf sizes in the lower income segment and proposed

incentives explained per typology. The steps that the City will have to take towards encouraging the

resale market are listed in Phase 4 of this document.

Housing subsidy qualification: The selection of subsidised, low income housing typologies was

guided by the housing subsidy amount of R140,000. The allocation, in turn, of medium income

typologies was limited by the product price of R300,000 towards ownership in the gap market through

the new NHFC/FLISP subsidy. Products that are appropriate for the Institutional rental, CRU and

transitional subsidies are also included.

Supply in the market of affordable products: Affordable current rates to a household earning

R7,000 per month and that are not eligible for subsidies, imply a house in the region of R250,000.

Therefore, in theory, products were developed below R300,000 to support this income group. The

table (K. Rust) below demonstrates the basic household affordability scale. Annexure H comprises a

more comprehensive discussion on Housing Finance Systems compiled by K. Rust as an input to this

study.

However, according to Kecia Rust, “assuming the new policy works as the old one did, on a sliding

scale where households on the bottom end of the range get the most subsidy and those on the top

end get the least, one might assume that a household earning R3,550 might get the full R83,000.

With a 30% instalment to income ratio, this household could afford to pay about R1,065 per

month. At the current prime rate of 9%, this would afford the household a mortgage of

R118,369.38. Add to this the housing subsidy of R83,000, and the household can afford a house of

R201,369.38 (assuming they have savings to cover transfer and conveyancing fees and the other

costs of moving). In South Africa today, there is no market-based housing for sale at that price”.

Rust continues: “Cosmopolitan, a large scale developer of affordable housing, advertises a house for

R245,000 on their website: this is a 40m² structure with very basic finishes. There is no new building

available for less than this.

One of the reasons is that it costs anywhere between R100,000 and R200,000, depending on area

and infrastructure, to build the government-subsidised house that is given away for free to households

earning less than R3,500 per month. The government-subsidy house is also a 40m² structure with

formal services. With such a house being given away for free, no developer or bank will risk offering a

similar house on the market with a 20 year loan obligation. By simply extending eligibility for

government funding to a larger proportion of the population, the President’s announcement has not

addressed the fundamental issues arising from the housing subsidy scheme”.

iv) Encouragement of Incremental Growth

Building for present needs and leaving room for expansion acknowledges incremental growth over

time, and opens up opportunities for backyard rentals. Therefore mixed-tenure and incremental

typologies are included in the selection.

v) Promotion of Economic Activity

Mixed use: Mixed-use typologies which enable small scale economic activity as supplementing

household income is essential to supporting the household and community livelihood. Therefore a

mixed-use typology is included in the selection.

Inclusionary housing: The selection of typologies addresses a mix of income groups as a

fundamental cornerstone of a transformed City in terms of space and economy, answering to one of

the key questions raised to ensure that the building blocks for sustainability are in place.

vi) Varied Housing Products

A variation of housing typologies is suggested to cater for various family types and needs. Units vary

from 15m² rental units supported through the CRU Programme, to larger rental accommodation within

http://www.cosmojhb.co.za/

the various income groups, to adaptable walk-ups, to a flexible mixed use typology. In addition, single

storey units are included in the general mix to allow for the elderly and also vulnerable end users.

vii) Rental, Backyard Rental and Private Delivery

Currently 62% of units produced in the City are RDP subsidised compared to 24% rentals, the BEPP

suggests that the ratio be 1:1 by 2015. The selection of typologies tries to address this by assigning a

higher ratio of affordable units suitable for the rental market, e.g. cluster typology, low rise flats, small

scale rental walk-ups and so on.

Typologies encourage additions to the core unit through consideration of expansion possibilities and

through suggesting that no additional rates should be raised by the City for up to two additional units/a

secondary dwelling, depending on erf sizes. In this manner, the private sector delivers additional

housing units to the market over time.

Landlords offering accommodation to households earning less than R7,500 per month can also apply

for an institutional subsidy to support the capital costs of the accommodation, thereby decreasing the

rental applicable. Therefore, typologies that support a secondary dwelling towards rental tenure, were

developed.

Incentives are suggested for the development of formal rentable units in the form of “granny-flats” in

the middle and higher income group in formal (urban) residential areas and rented to the lower and

middle income groups respectively.

viii) Location

Located within close proximity to economic opportunities, social amenities and public transport

facilities and services, a mix of housing typologies is suggested with variety in density building to

higher densities along activity routes, public transport nodes and corridors. All housing is proposed

within the identified Strategic Areas where there are economic activities to facilitate employment.

Adequate social facilities are proposed for new development or where existing areas are densified.

Inclusionary Housing stock is encouraged in the selection of a series of typologies per income group

per Strategic Area, especially focusing on public transport areas where rezoning have been approved.

It should be noted that, as learnt from Cosmo City and other case studies on Inclusionary Housing

combination of income groups should happen at scale and

- Preferably not vertically within the same building

- Preferably not within the same urban block, but should allow on precinct scale for example,

for the poor to be located centrally as far as possible (pedestrian centre), with higher income

groups staged upon the periphery of development when possible.

ix) The Spatial Development Framework (SDF) for the City of Johannesburg (2010-2011) guided

the allocation of typologies per Strategic Area. In addition, precinct frameworks guided decisions:

- To support efficient movement systems, higher density typologies were given preference in

the allocation of percentages per typology type. Densities are scaled down the further the

distance is from a core, nodal development or transport routes and are reflected in the

percentage allocation of lower density typologies further from nodes or where appropriate as

per SDF. The SDF puts several conditions forward (p.128) to be applied as part of approval

for higher densities, in addition to standard conditions applicable in relation to Town Planning

Schemes. These have been captured in the Design Guidelines for housing typologies

developed for the SHSUP.

- Where applicable, the Density Bonus Programme will apply to higher densities.

- In line with key Sustainable Human Settlement elements such as an integrated public

transport network and walkability, mixed-use typologies are concentrated along public

transport routes. (Table 5.3 "Key SHS Elements")

- A mix of housing typologies is suggested to cater for various family types and needs, with a

variety of housing units and sizes.

- Percentages were guided towards an inclusionary end-product, with mixes of subsidized

housing products and inclusionary products.

- Percentages of typologies were selected in relation to compact urban form associated with

different types of development, e.g. around nodal development, the focus is on a finer grain

with pedestrian friendly interfaces, but does not exclude vehicular traffic. Therefore for

example, all single or even double storey typologies are not considered for such a node.

The above concludes the criteria, used in the design and allocation of housing typologies used in the

Base Scenario of the Demand and Opportunities Model.

Phasing of Development

The next step in the development of the Base Scenario for the Housing Opportunities and Demand

Model was to allocate a timeframe for implementation (short term, medium term or long term) for the

various Strategic Areas. The following allocations/assumptions were made for the Base Scenario in

this regard:

In the Mixed Use Nodes it was assumed that development will occur evenly in the short-,

medium-, and long term. A ratio of 33:34:33 was thus applied for all income categories. In some

cases where large scale projects are already underway, a 50:50 ratio for short and medium term

was used e.g. Kliptown, Jabulani, Baralink, Randburg.

All BRT routes were assigned a 33:34:33 ratio.

Most TOD stations were assigned a 33:34:33 ratio except in cases where planning was far

advanced e.g. Nancefield, Merafi, Naledi and Marlboro and Midrand Gautrain stations where a

50:50 short to medium term ratio was adopted.

Short Term Housing Project areas were allocated 100% in the short term for low income, and a

50:50 split between short and medium term for middle income.

North Eastern Consolidation and Infill Areas: Far advanced projects like Waterfall City and Linbro

Park were allocated a 50:50 short to medium term ratio, while the newly identified areas like

President Park, Austin View and Leeuwkop were allocated a 50:50 ratio for medium to long term.

Mining Belt areas were allocated a 25:75 medium to long term ratio for low and middle income.

For existing/planned housing projects in the mining belt the allocation was 50:50 short to medium

term.

Existing/planned housing projects in the Redevelopment Areas was allocated a 50:50 ratio for

short to medium term, while the redevelopment anticipated in the remainder part of this Strategic

Area is scheduled for the medium to longer term (50:50).

For the Expansion areas the development is scheduled at 25% medium term and 75% long term.

The above represents a summary of the structure of the model and assumptions used in the

formulation of the Base Scenario. Comments on the model from a property economics perspective as

provided by the Project Advisory Team are included in Annexure I.

Housing Demand and Opportunities Model: Base Scenario Results

The following is a brief summary of the results of the Base Scenario as reflected in Tables 28.1 up to

28.7:

a) Total Housing Yield

The total potential housing yield for the Base Scenario is 815,685 units comprising 334,439 low

income units (41%); 325,507 (40%) middle income units, and 155,738 (19%) high income units

(refer to Table 28.1).

The largest contributor to this yield is the North Eastern Consolidation and Infill Area (157,539

units representing 19% of all units), followed by the Short Term Housing Projects (South) with

91,497 units (11%), the BRT routes which represent 84,482 units (10%), and the Northern

Expansion Areas (78,662 units (10%).

In the low income category the highest yields (61,362 units) (18%) are located in the Short Term

Housing Project Areas (South), the North Eastern Consolidation Areas (58,732 units) (18%), the

Southern Expansion Areas (44,407 units) (13%), and the Mining Belt (43,909 units) (13%).

In the middle income category the highest yield was obtained in the North Eastern Consolidation

Area (81,573 units) (25%), followed by the TOD stations (44,614 units) (14%).

For the high income category the highest yields were recorded in the Mixed Use Nodes (40,314

units) (26%), followed by the BRT routes (35,162 units) (15%) and the Expansion Areas (North)

with 33,343 units (21%).

It should be noted that the Base Scenario is strongly biased towards medium and higher density

development and that the figures reflected above represent a yield close to the maximum for the

respective Strategic Areas.

Table 28.1: Total Dwelling Units

b) Yield per Housing Typology

According to Table 28.2 the Base Scenario results in 135,906 cluster/hybrid housing units which

represent about 17% of the total yield. Low rise flats total about 103,759 units (13% of total),

followed by duplex storey row housing with 103,603 units (13%) and medium to high rise flats

with 85,631 units (10%). Collectively, these four typologies thus represent about 53% of the total

yield in the Base Scenario. This confirms the strong bias towards medium and higher density

development adopted for the Base Scenario. (Also note the high average residential density

achieved from the Base Scenario highlighted in section c) below).

DEMAND AND OPPORTUNITIES MODEL - Rev 5 2012-05-09

TOTAL DWELLING UNITS

INCOME GROUPS

LOW INCOME % MIDDLE INCOME % HIGH INCOME % TOTAL %

PUBLIC TRANSPORT PRIORITY AREAS:

MIXED USE NODES WITHIN PRIORITY

PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORK (PPTN)

11 539 3% 23 647 7% 40 314 26% 75 500 9%


MIXED USE NODES OUTSIDE PRIORITY


2 422 1% 5 556 2% 22 608 15% 30 585 4%

PUBLIC TRANSPORT PRIORITY AREAS: TOD

STATIONS 29 212 9% 44 614 14% 291 0% 74 117 9%

PUBLIC TRANSPORT PRIORITY AREAS: BRT

ROUTES 20 313 6% 29 007 9% 35 162 23% 84 482 10%

SHORT TERM HOUSING PROJECTS: NORTH 41 160 12% 15 769 5% - 0% 56 929 7%

SHORT TERM HOUSING PROJECTS: SOUTH 61 362 18% 30 134 9% - 0% 91 497 11%

CONSOLIDATION AND INFILL AREAS:

NORTH EASTERN SUBURBS 58 732 18% 81 573 25% 17 234 11% 157 539 19%


MINING BELT 43 909 13% 26 552 8% - 0% 70 461 9%

REDEVELOPMENT AREAS: SOUTHERN

SUBURBS 10 318 3% 12 160 4% 1 296 1% 23 775 3%

PROPOSED EXPANSION AREAS NORTH 11 065 3% 34 254 11% 33 343 21% 78 662 10%

PROPOSED EXPANSION AREAS SOUTH 44 407 13% 22 241 7% 5 490 4% 72 138 9%

TOTAL 334 439 100% 325 507 100% 155 738 100% 815 685 100%

% 41% 40% 19% 100%

Table 28.2: Total Housing Typologies

DEMAND AND OPPORTUNITIES MODEL - Rev 5 2012-05-09

TOTAL HOUSING TYPOLOGIES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

SINGLE

STOREY

DETACHED

HOUSING

SINGLE

STOREY

SEMI-

DETACHED

HOUSING

DUPLEX

SEMI-

DETACHED

UNITS

SINGLE

STOREY

ROW

HOUSING

WALK-UPS

INCREMENT

AL

HOUSING

MIXED

TENURE/BA

CKYARD

RENTAL

MIXED USE

DUPLEX

STOREY

ROW

HOUSING

CLUSTER /

HYBRID

HOUSING

LOW RISE

FLATS

MEDIUM TO

HIGH RISE

FLATS

REFURBISH

MENTTOTAL


MIXED USE NODES WITHIN PRIORITY


- - - - 3 124 - - 11 275 6 083 6 713 12 262 31 936 4 108 75 500


MIXED USE NODES OUTSIDE PRIORITY


- - - - - - - 6 205 1 184 5 569 2 227 14 764 636 30 585


TOD STATIONS- - - - - - - 11 743 16 827 7 865 26 763 10 919 - 74 117


BRT ROUTES- - - - - - - 14 011 7 695 18 251 15 060 28 012 1 453 84 482

SHORT TERM HOUSING PROJECTS:

NORTH3 460 5 690 6 337 - 1 606 9 622 9 824 5 624 5 909 6 607 2 250 - - 56 929


SOUTH6 531 10 741 10 741 - 3 906 13 029 13 029 - 15 113 18 407 - - - 91 497


NORTH EASTERN SUBURBS17 391 18 816 15 196 - 8 872 1 170 9 983 9 217 26 958 40 638 9 298 - - 157 539


MINING BELT4 709 7 744 7 744 - 3 139 8 790 8 790 - 9 732 5 860 13 953 - - 70 461

REDEVELOPMENT AREAS: SOUTHERN

SUBURBS1 327 1 724 1 377 - 930 - 5 042 - 2 828 6 945 3 602 - - 23 775

PROPOSED EXPANSION AREAS NORTH 16 937 15 867 15 867 - 4 344 790 2 370 846 4 196 11 804 5 641 - - 78 662

PROPOSED EXPANSION AREAS SOUTH 6 161 9 848 7 335 - 1 798 8 558 11 410 - 7 078 7 248 12 704 - - 72 138

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TOTAL 56 516 70 428 64 595 - 27 718 41 960 60 450 58 921 103 603 135 906 103 759 85 631 6 198 815 685

% 7% 9% 8% 3% 5% 7% 7% 13% 17% 13% 10% 1% 100%

c) Average Density per Income Category

Table 28.3 illustrates the average residential density per Strategic Area per income category

according to the Base Scenario. The average density (all income categories) is about 108 units

per hectare ranging between an average of 106 units per hectare for the middle income group, to

108 units per hectare for the low income category, and 115 units per hectare for the high income

group (more multi-storey units provided than for the other income categories).

Table 28.3: Dwellings/Hectare

d) Potential Short, Medium and Long Term Yield

Table 28.4 highlights the short-, medium- and long term yields anticipated in the various

Strategic Areas. The largest contributing areas to the short term yield include the Northern and

Southern Short Term Housing Areas (for obvious reasons), the TOD stations, Mixed Use Nodes

and BRT routes. The Mining Belt is also a fairly strong contributor due to the existing projects in

this area.

In total about 34% of the total yield can be achieved in the short term, 34% in the medium term,

and 32% in the long term (given the Base Scenario assumptions).

DEMAND AND OPPORTUNITIES MODEL - Rev 5 2012-05-09TOTAL DWELLING UNITS

LOW MIDDLE HIGH TOTAL

Dwellings ha du / ha Dwellings ha du / ha Dwellings ha du / ha Dwellings ha du / haPUBLIC TRANSPORT PRIORITY

AREAS: MIXED USE NODES

WITHIN PRIORITY PUBLIC

TRANSPORT NETWORK (PPTN)

11539 79 147 23647 158 150 40314 186 217 75500 422 179

PUBLIC TRANSPORT PRIORITY


OUTSIDE PRIORITY PUBLIC


2422 16 152 5556 32 175 22608 111 203 30585 159 192


AREAS: TOD STATIONS29212 240 122 44614 269 166 291 2 187 74117 511 145


AREAS: BRT ROUTES20313 136 149 29007 176 165 35162 174 202 84482 486 174

PRECINCT SHORT TERM

HOUSING PROJECTS: NORTH41160 391 105 15769 168 94 0 0 0 56929 559 102

SHORT TERM HOUSING

PROJECTS: SOUTH61362 620 99 30134 347 87 0 0 0 91497 968 95

CONSOLIDATION AND INFILL

AREAS: NORTH EASTERN

SUBURBS

58732 613 96 81573 899 91 17234 219 79 157539 1732 91


AREAS: MINING BELT43909 419 105 26552 279 95 0 0 0 70461 698 101

REDEVELOPMENT AREAS:

SOUTHERN SUBURBS10318 72 143 12160 124 98 1296 22 60 23775 218 109

EXPANSION AREAS: PROPOSED

EXPANSION AREAS NORTH11065 90 123 34254 405 85 33343 554 60 78662 1049 75


EXPANSION AREAS SOUTH44407 412 108 22241 228 98 5490 87 63 72138 727 99

TOTAL 334439 3089 108 325507 3084 106 155738 1356 115 815685 7529 108

Table 28.4: Priority

e) Development Cost

Table 28.5 illustrates that the total cost for high income residential developments (private sector)

represent about 33% of total development cost (R63,04 billion), although in terms of numbers,

the high income units only represent 19% of the total yield (see Table 28.5).

The low income (public funded) category represents about 29% of total development cost (R55,1

billion), while comprising 41% of the total yield, and the middle income category stands at about

37% of the total development cost (R70,2 billion) which is more or less in line with the 40% of all

residential units represented by this income category.

f) Tenure Split

The Base Scenario resulted in a 53%:47% average split between full ownership and rental units.

This is closely in line with the objective of the CoJ as stated in the Built Environment

Performance Plan (BEPP) of achieving a 1:1 ratio between rental stock and full ownership. It

should be kept in mind that the rental referred to in the table below only represents formal rental.

If the informal rental derived from full tenure units is added to the equation, the rental yields can

be significantly higher (refer to Table 28.6).

DEMAND AND OPPORTUNITIES MODEL - Rev 5 2012-05-09PHASING

SHORT TERM MEDIUM TERM LONG TERM TOTAL

% du ha % du ha % du ha % du haPUBLIC TRANSPORT PRIORITY

AREAS: MIXED USE NODES WITHIN

PRIORITY PUBLIC TRANSPORT

NETWORK (PPTN)

37% 28 012 160 37% 28 030 161 26% 19 458 101 100% 75 500 422





33% 10 093 53 34% 10 399 54 33% 10 093 53 100% 30 585 159


AREAS: TOD STATIONS37% 27 167 188 37% 27 748 192 26% 19 202 132 100% 74 117 511


AREAS: BRT ROUTES33% 27 879 160 34% 28 724 165 33% 27 879 160 100% 84 482 486

PRECINCT SHORT TERM HOUSING

PROJECTS: NORTH86% 49 045 475 14% 7 885 84 0% - 0 100% 56 929 559


SOUTH84% 76 429 794 16% 15 067 174 0% - 0 100% 91 497 968


AREAS: NORTH EASTERN SUBURBS20% 31 713 326 44% 69 844 781 36% 55 981 625 100% 157 539 1732


AREAS: MINING BELT28% 20 043 198 39% 27 637 274 32% 22 782 226 100% 70 461 698


SOUTHERN SUBURBS15% 3 582 28 50% 11 887 109 35% 8 306 80 100% 23 775 218


EXPANSION AREAS NORTH0% - 0 46% 36 565 502 54% 42 097 547 100% 78 662 1049


EXPANSION AREAS SOUTH0% - 0 25% 18 035 182 75% 54 104 545 100% 72 138 727

TOTAL 34% 273 963 2383 35% 281 820 2676 32% 259 902 2469 100% 815 685 7528

Table 28.5: Total Unit Costs

COST MODEL - (Rev 5 2012-05-09)

TOTAL UNIT COSTSLOW MIDDLE HIGH TOTAL

TOP STRUCTURE

COST (High level

cost in relation to

proposed

typology

configuration in

relation to site,

wall to floor

ratio,

superstructure)

Foundations

(flat

topography)

**INFRASTRUCTUR

E Services (roads,

stomwater, water

supply, sewer

drainage,

electrical, etc)

Total

APPROXIMATE UNIT

COST top structure

(STARTING FROM)

Foundations (flat

topography) **INFRASTRUCTURE Total

APPROXIMATE

UNIT COST (FROM)

**INFRASTRUCTUR

E Total

APPROXIMATE UNIT

COST top structure

(STARTING FROM)

Foundations (flat

topography)

**INFRASTRUCTUR

E Total



WITHIN PRIORITY PUBLIC

TRANSPORT NETWORK (PPTN) R 1 591 909 077 R 362 268 303 R 454 963 936 R 2 409 141 316 R 3 592 093 864 R 284 929 981 R 931 041 482 R 4 808 065 327 R 8 606 209 337 R 445 561 361 R 9 051 770 698 R 13 790 212 279 R 647 198 284 R 1 831 566 779 R 16 268 977 341




TRANSPORT NETWORK (PPTN) R 332 946 661 R 74 688 938 R 93 487 160 R 501 122 759 R 861 900 067 R 67 046 331 R 216 066 710 R 1 145 013 107 R 4 319 819 560 R 172 792 782 R 4 492 612 342 R 5 514 666 288 R 141 735 269 R 482 346 652 R 6 138 748 209


AREAS: TOD STATIONS R 3 702 896 801 R 775 505 568 R 1 046 362 869 R 5 524 765 239 R 7 042 387 376 R 539 964 063 R 1 768 320 949 R 9 350 672 388 R 53 804 459 R 2 152 178 R 55 956 637 R 10 799 088 636 R 1 315 469 632 R 2 816 835 996 R 14 931 394 264


AREAS: BRT ROUTES R 2 526 047 033 R 545 312 245 R 697 822 951 R 3 769 182 229 R 4 441 853 055 R 342 591 259 R 1 117 200 195 R 5 901 644 509 R 6 702 352 776 R 268 094 111 R 6 970 446 887 R 13 670 252 864 R 887 903 504 R 2 083 117 257 R 16 641 273 624

SHORT TERM HOUSING

PROJECTS: NORTH R 3 894 700 286 R 1 001 202 093 R 1 027 216 616 R 5 923 118 996 R 2 892 498 961 R 227 978 094 R 713 918 781 R 3 834 395 836 R 6 787 199 247 R 1 229 180 187 R 1 741 135 398 R 9 757 514 832


SOUTH R 5 499 591 686 R 1 432 231 432 R 1 492 501 213 R 8 424 324 331 R 5 170 924 496 R 417 014 885 R 1 324 229 737 R 6 912 169 118 R 10 670 516 182 R 1 849 246 317 R 2 816 730 950 R 15 336 493 449


AREAS: NORTH EASTERN

SUBURBS R 6 296 610 272 R 1 312 252 881 R 1 772 266 713 R 9 381 129 867 R 13 254 723 947 R 1 095 214 615 R 3 290 465 467 R 17 640 404 030 R 8 235 459 630 R 909 713 200 R 9 145 172 830 R 27 786 793 850 R 2 407 467 497 R 5 972 445 380 R 36 166 706 727


AREAS: MINING BELT R 4 832 385 563 R 1 246 775 982 R 1 321 100 414 R 7 400 261 959 R 4 473 054 723 R 372 625 330 R 1 136 931 320 R 5 982 611 373 R 9 305 440 286 R 1 619 401 312 R 2 458 031 734 R 13 382 873 331


SOUTHERN SUBURBS R 1 377 351 508 R 299 773 433 R 389 555 999 R 2 066 680 940 R 1 752 969 918 R 146 368 339 R 439 949 337 R 2 339 287 594 R 962 184 262 R 112 621 522 R 1 074 805 784 R 4 092 505 688 R 446 141 772 R 942 126 858 R 5 480 774 318

PROPOSED EXPANSION AREAS

NORTH R 1 364 632 205 R 315 924 609 R 378 218 160 R 2 058 774 974 R 5 608 923 448 R 506 577 093 R 1 388 400 935 R 7 503 901 476 R 25 062 445 320 R 3 000 847 770 R 28 063 293 090 R 32 036 000 972 R 822 501 701 R 4 767 466 866 R 37 625 969 539


SOUTH R 4 996 387 538 R 1 287 082 842 R 1 363 469 911 R 7 646 940 291 R 3 615 432 033 R 301 801 236 R 908 060 950 R 4 825 294 219 R 3 754 620 599 R 436 102 712 R 4 190 723 312 R 12 366 440 171 R 1 588 884 078 R 2 707 633 574 R 16 662 957 822

TOTAL R 36 415 458 631 R 8 653 018 325 R 10 036 965 943 R 55 105 442 899 R 52 706 761 887 R 4 302 111 227 R 13 234 585 862 R 70 243 458 977 R 57 696 895 944 R 5 347 885 638 R 63 044 781 581 R 146 819 116 462 R 12 955 129 552 R 28 619 437 443 R 188 393 683 457

% 29% 37% 33% 100%

Table 28.6: Tenure Split: Total Dwelling Units

TENURE SPLIT - (Rev 5 2012-05-09)TOTAL TENURE SPLIT

TOTAL LOW TOTAL MEDIUM TOTAL HIGH TOTAL DWELLING UINITS

Full

Ownership Rental Total

Full

Ownership Rental Total Full Ownership Rental Total

Full

Ownership Rental Total

% No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No % No


AREAS: MIXED USE NODES WITHIN


NETWORK (PPTN) 32% 3 662 68% 7 876 100% 11 539 50% 11 824 50% 11 824 100% 23 647 50% 20 157 50% 20 157 100% 40 314 47% 35 643 53% 39 857 100% 75 500


AREAS: MIXED USE NODES OUTSIDE


NETWORK (PPTN) 29% 711 71% 1 710 100% 2 422 50% 2 778 50% 2 778 100% 5 556 50% 11 304 50% 11 304 100% 22 608 48% 14 793 52% 15 792 100% 30 585


AREAS: TOD STATIONS 44% 12 919 56% 16 293 100% 29 212 50% 22 307 50% 22 307 100% 44 614 50% 146 50% 146 100% 291 48% 35 371 52% 38 746 100% 74 117


AREAS: BRT ROUTES 30% 6 142 70% 14 170 100% 20 313 50% 14 504 50% 14 504 100% 29 007 50% 17 581 50% 17 581 100% 35 162 45% 38 227 55% 46 255 100% 84 482


NORTH 62% 25 459 38% 15 701 100% 41 160 50% 7 885 50% 7 885 100% 15 769 #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - 59% 33 344 41% 23 586 100% 56 929


SOUTH 65% 39 647 35% 21 716 100% 61 362 50% 15 067 50% 15 067 100% 30 134 #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - 60% 54 714 40% 36 783 100% 91 497


AREAS: NORTH EASTERN SUBURBS 70% 40 838 30% 17 893 100% 58 732 50% 40 786 50% 40 786 100% 81 573 50% 8 617 50% 8 617 100% 17 234 57% 90 242 43% 67 297 100% 157 539


AREAS: MINING BELT 61% 26 747 39% 17 162 100% 43 909 50% 13 276 50% 13 276 100% 26 552 #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - #DIV/0! - 57% 40 023 43% 30 438 100% 70 461


SOUTHERN SUBURBS 41% 4 196 59% 6 123 100% 10 318 50% 6 080 50% 6 080 100% 12 160 50% 648 50% 648 100% 1 296 46% 10 924 54% 12 851 100% 23 775


NORTH 46% 5 143 54% 5 923 100% 11 065 50% 17 127 50% 17 127 100% 34 254 50% 16 671 50% 16 671 100% 33 343 50% 38 941 50% 39 721 100% 78 662


SOUTH 58% 25 794 42% 18 613 100% 44 407 50% 11 121 50% 11 121 100% 22 241 50% 2 745 50% 2 745 100% 5 490 55% 39 660 45% 32 479 100% 72 138

TOTAL 57% 191 258 43% 143 181 100% 334 439 50% 162 754 50% 162 754 100% 325 507 50% 77 869 50% 77 869 100% 155 738 53% 431 881 47% 383 804 100% 815 685

g) Public-Private Involvement

As far as public and private sector involvement is concerned, it can be assumed that the total low

income yield of 334,439 units will be public funded, while the entire high income yield of 155,738

units will be funded by the private sector. The middle income category represents a mixture of

public and private funding, but it is impossible to distinguish between a public funded versus a

private funded yield in this category. (Refer to information box below). This is however the

domain of public-private partnerships and it can be safely assumed that a large percentage of the

325,507 units in the middle income category would represent public-private partnerships.

Public-Private Ratio

In the low income sector, housing is delivered with public funding through national subsidies. In the

middle income category, a sliding scale is applied to determine affordability towards ownership and is

dependent on the availability of products to match affordability. For the lower gap income groups this

has implied rental as the only tenure option to date and public delivery at a scale that has far

underperformed in terms of supply. The ratio of public-private delivery in the middle income category

is therefore directly linked to the sliding scale of affordability, with more public/institutional support in

the lower (R3,501 – R7,000) group and more private/institutional support in the upper segment

(R7,000 – R15,000). In the high income sector (above R15,000), housing is delivered through private

funding.

The delivery of housing in the lower gap income groups has therefore resulted in housing delivered

that is a clear reflection of the public-private ratio, namely a house-on-a-stand in the lower segment, in

the R3,500 – R7,000 sector manageable typologies such as low rise flats and walk-ups and in the

upper gap segment, affordable houses. However, with the introduction of the new NHFC/FLISP

subsidy from 1 April 2012, more housing products and tenure options will become available to the City

in the gap segment through public funds. The ratio will increase based on the availability of affordable

products.

h) Number of Community Facilities and Costs

Table 28.7 illustrates the number of Community Facilities required to serve the population

associated with the residential yield in each of the Strategic Areas. It also highlights the costs

associated with the construction of these facilities based on the average building cost per m² of a

typical facility. The last column in Table 28.7 summarises the total number of community facilities

required to serve the 815,615 residential units, as well as the associated cost to construct these

facilities which is estimated at about R31,4 billion.

Table 28.7: Community Facility Model

PUBLIC TRANSPORT PRIORITY AREAS: MIXED

USE NODES WITHIN PRIORITY PUBLIC


PUBLIC TRANSPORT PRIORITY AREAS: MIXED

USE NODES OUTSIDE PRIORITY PUBLIC


PUBLIC TRANSPORT PRIORITY AREAS: TOD

STATIONS

PUBLIC TRANSPORT PRIORITY AREAS: BRT

ROUTES

SHORT TERM

HOUSING

PROJECTS:

NORTH

no

Unit Cost /

m²

Building

Area m²

(Assumed) Total Cost no

Unit Cost /

m²

Building

Area m²


Unit Cost /

m²

Building

Area m²


Unit Cost /

m²

Building

Area m²

(Assumed) Total Cost

Education R 2 298 904 821 R 931 295 869 R 1 638 877 343 R 2 572 388 237

Primary 43 R 5 200 8 600 R 1 920 951 560 17 R 5 200 8 600 R 778 185 436 31 R 5 200 8 600 R 1 369 436 420 48 R 5 200 8 600 R 2 149 472 719

Secondary 4 R 6 000 12 500 R 317 100 219 2 R 6 000 12 500 R 128 458 613 3 R 6 000 12 500 R 226 059 104 5 R 6 000 12 500 R 354 823 248

Creche 47 R 5 200 250 R 60 853 042 19 R 5 200 250 R 24 651 820 33 R 5 200 250 R 43 381 819 52 R 5 200 250 R 68 092 271

Community Facilities R 777 535 504 R 314 982 854 R 554 301 034 R 870 033 054

Clinic 23 R 7 000 1 500 R 245 752 670 9 R 7 000 1 500 R 99 555 425 17 R 7 000 1 500 R 175 195 806 26 R 7 000 1 500 R 274 988 017

Post Office 21 R 6 200 500 R 65 959 591 9 R 6 200 500 R 26 720 504 15 R 6 200 500 R 47 022 251 24 R 6 200 500 R 73 806 308

Police 9 R 6 200 800 R 46 435 552 4 R 6 200 800 R 18 811 235 7 R 6 200 800 R 33 103 665 10 R 6 200 800 R 51 959 641

Community Centre 8 R 6 000 2 500 R 113 250 078 3 R 6 000 2 500 R 45 878 076 5 R 6 000 2 500 R 80 735 394 8 R 6 000 2 500 R 126 722 588

Municipal Office / Pay Point 5 R 6 800 3 000 R 95 492 466 2 R 6 800 3 000 R 38 684 394 3 R 6 800 3 000 R 68 076 085 5 R 6 800 3 000 R 106 852 487

Library 23 R 6 000 1 500 R 210 645 146 9 R 6 000 1 500 R 85 333 221 17 R 6 000 1 500 R 150 167 834 26 R 6 000 1 500 R 235 704 014

TOTAL R 3 076 440 325 R 1 246 278 723 R 2 193 178 378 R 3 442 421 291

Table 28.7: Community Facility Model (cont)

SHORT TERM HOUSING PROJECTS: NORTH SHORT TERM HOUSING PROJECTS: SOUTHCONSOLIDATION AND INFILL AREAS: NORTH

EASTERN SUBURBS

CONSOLIDATION AND INFILL AREAS: MINING

BELT

REDEVELOPMENT

AREAS:

SOUTHERN

SUBURBS

no

Unit Cost /

m²

Building

Area m²


Unit Cost /

m²

Building

Area m²


Unit Cost /

m²

Building

Area m²


Unit Cost /

m²

Building

Area m²


Education R 1 733 444 100 R 2 785 983 538 R 4 644 667 065 R 2 104 049 000

Primary 32 R 5 200 8 600 R 1 448 455 854 52 R 5 200 8 600 R 2 327 951 716 87 R 5 200 8 600 R 3 881 056 911 39 R 5 200 8 600 R 1 758 131 164

Secondary 3 R 6 000 12 500 R 239 103 202 5 R 6 000 12 500 R 384 285 588 9 R 6 000 12 500 R 640 663 733 4 R 6 000 12 500 R 290 222 715

Creche 35 R 5 200 250 R 45 885 043 57 R 5 200 250 R 73 746 234 95 R 5 200 250 R 122 946 421 43 R 5 200 250 R 55 695 121

Community Facilities R 586 285 399 R 942 275 249 R 1 570 919 123 R 711 631 375

Clinic 18 R 7 000 1 500 R 185 304 982 28 R 7 000 1 500 R 297 821 331 47 R 7 000 1 500 R 496 514 393 21 R 7 000 1 500 R 224 922 604

Post Office 16 R 6 200 500 R 49 735 536 26 R 6 200 500 R 79 934 729 43 R 6 200 500 R 133 263 603 19 R 6 200 500 R 60 368 838

Police 7 R 6 200 800 R 35 013 817 11 R 6 200 800 R 56 274 050 19 R 6 200 800 R 93 817 577 9 R 6 200 800 R 42 499 662

Community Centre 6 R 6 000 2 500 R 85 394 001 9 R 6 000 2 500 R 137 244 853 15 R 6 000 2 500 R 228 808 476 7 R 6 000 2 500 R 103 650 970

Municipal Office / Pay Point 4 R 6 800 3 000 R 72 004 221 6 R 6 800 3 000 R 115 724 860 9 R 6 800 3 000 R 192 931 307 4 R 6 800 3 000 R 87 398 498

Library 18 R 6 000 1 500 R 158 832 841 28 R 6 000 1 500 R 255 275 426 47 R 6 000 1 500 R 425 583 766 21 R 6 000 1 500 R 192 790 804

TOTAL R 2 319 729 499 R 3 728 258 787 R 6 215 586 188 R 2 815 680 375

Table 28.7: Community Facility Model (cont)

REDEVELOPMENT AREAS: SOUTHERN SUBURBS PROPOSED EXPANSION AREAS NORTH PROPOSED EXPANSION AREAS SOUTH TOTAL

no

Unit Cost /

m²

Building

Area m²


Unit Cost /

m²

Building

Area m²


Unit Cost /

m²

Building

Area m²


Unit Cost /

m²

Building

Area m²


Education R 171 108 716.92 R 2 395 189 878.43 R 2 196 541 603.38 R 23 472 450 172.89

Primary 3 R 5 200 8 600 R 142 977 453.27 45 R 5 200 8 600 R 2 001 406 796.10 41 R 5 200 8 600 R 1 835 417 447.49 439 R 5 200 8 600 R 19 613 443 476.93

Secondary 0 R 6 000 12 500 R 23 601 939.14 4 R 6 000 12 500 R 330 381 331.56 4 R 6 000 12 500 R 302 980 714.09 43 R 6 000 12 500 R 3 237 680 408.11

Creche 3 R 5 200 250 R 4 529 324.51 49 R 5 200 250 R 63 401 750.77 45 R 5 200 250 R 58 143 441.80 478 R 5 200 250 R 621 326 287.84

Community Facilities R 81 698 729.87 R 810 101 031.92 R 742 914 219.69 R 7 962 677 573.59

Clinic 2 R 7 000 1 500 R 18 291 502.83 24 R 7 000 1 500 R 256 045 531.96 22 R 7 000 1 500 R 234 810 053.42 239 R 7 000 1 500 R 2 509 202 316.29

Post Office 2 R 6 200 500 R 4 909 407.69 22 R 6 200 500 R 68 722 177.41 20 R 6 200 500 R 63 022 611.74 217 R 6 200 500 R 673 465 556.75

Police 1 R 6 200 800 R 3 456 223.01 10 R 6 200 800 R 48 380 412.90 9 R 6 200 800 R 44 367 918.67 96 R 6 200 800 R 474 119 751.95

Community Centre 2 R 6 000 2 500 R 32 255 609.95 8 R 6 000 2 500 R 117 993 332.70 7 R 6 000 2 500 R 108 207 397.89 79 R 6 000 2 500 R 1 180 140 777.44

Municipal Office / Pay Point 0 R 6 800 3 000 R 7 107 555.39 5 R 6 800 3 000 R 99 491 978.13 4 R 6 800 3 000 R 91 240 477.90 48 R 6 800 3 000 R 975 004 328.61

Library 2 R 6 000 1 500 R 15 678 431.00 24 R 6 000 1 500 R 219 467 598.82 22 R 6 000 1 500 R 201 265 760.08 239 R 6 000 1 500 R 2 150 744 842.53

TOTAL R 252 807 446.80 R 3 205 290 910.35 R 2 939 455 823.07 R 31 435 127 746.48

1.1. Alternative Development Options

Table 29 illustrates alternative development options available to the City given the potential yields in

the various Strategic Areas from the Base Scenario. This table indicates that the total incremental

demand in terms of residential units will be about 466,068 units up to the year 2030. This information

is based on the population projections conducted during Phase 1 of this study and originates from the

socio-economic database of the City of Joburg.

Option 1A adds the projected incremental demand of 466,068 units to the existing backlog which

comprises of 164,939 informal structures, as well as the estimated 320,652 backyard units. This

brings the total demand to 951,658 units.

The table then adds the potential yield per each of the Strategic Areas from the Base Scenario (which

totals 815,685 units), and adds to this the capacity of in-situ upgradings of informal settlement

currently scheduled in the Housing Programme of the City (27,500 units). (The in-situ upgrading areas

were not included into the model due to the fact that these comprise a large number of small pockets

of land and individual erven throughout the City). The capacity of the in-situ formalisation areas

increases the total supply from 815,685 to 842,185 units. If the total demand is subtracted from the

supply in the various Strategic Areas, it indicates that there is a shortage of land for about 109,473

units.

However, if the existing backyard rental units in the CoJ were to be formalised in-situ, it reduces the

total demand from 951,658 units to about 631 006 units as illustrated in Option 1B. This results in a

surplus capacity totalling about 211,179 units.

Option 2A and 2B use the same demand scenario as Options 1A and 1B. However, as far as land

supply is concerned it also considers the current rate of housing delivery in the rest of the City (areas

outside the Strategic Areas) which totals about 14,500 units per annum. Over a twenty year projection

period this totals about 293,970 units. In Options 2A and 2B this yield of 293,970 is added to the in-

situ formalisation and Strategic Areas yield of 842,185 to bring the total yield to about 1,136,155 units.

This means that there is sufficient land to accommodate the total demand (including backyard units)

with surplus capacity of about 184,497 units. If the backyard rental units are excluded from the

demand (Option 2B), the surplus capacity increases to about 505,149 units.

Option 3A and 3B again use the same demand scenarios as Options 1 and 2. In this case, however,

it is assumed that the City follows a compact city approach by directing all development to the

identified Strategic Areas, but excluding the Expansion Areas North and South. This brings the total

land supply for housing to about 691,385 units.

In Option 3A this results in a deficit of about 260,273 units (if the backyard rental units are included in

the backlog).

Table 29: Alternative Development Options: Base Scenario

INCREMENT

2010 2030 2010 - 2030

BASE 3 710 295 4 300 882 590 588

High Medium Low Total High Medium Low Total High Medium Low Total

BASE 250 392 399 373 629 048 1 278 813 436 220 575 811 732 850 1 744 881 185 829 176 437 103 802 466 068

INCREMENTAL DU

2010 - 2030 Informal Backyard TotalIn Situ

Upgrading

Nodes

within

PPTN

Nodes

outside

PPTN

TOD BRTShort Term

North

Short Term

South

Cons. &

Infill North

East

Cons. &

Infill Mining

Belt

Redev.

Southern

Suburbs

Expansion

North

Expansion

South

Rest of

CityTotal

466 068 164 939 320 652 485 591 951 658 26 500 75 500 30 585 74 117 84 482 56 929 91 497 157 539 70 461 23 775 78 662 72 138 842 185 -109 473

INCREMENTAL DU


Upgrading

Nodes

within

PPTN

Nodes

outside

PPTN

TOD BRTShort Term

North

Short Term

South

Cons. &

Infill North

East

Cons. &

Infill Mining

Belt

Redev.

Southern

Suburbs

Expansion

North

Expansion

South

Rest of

CityTotal

466 068 164 939 164 939 631 006 26 500 75 500 30 585 74 117 84 482 56 929 91 497 157 539 70 461 23 775 78 662 72 138 842 185 211 179

INCREMENTAL DU


Upgrading

Nodes

within

PPTN

Nodes

outside

PPTN

TOD BRTShort Term

North

Short Term

South

Cons. &

Infill North

East

Cons. &

Infill Mining

Belt

Redev.

Southern

Suburbs

Expansion

North

Expansion

South

Rest of

CityTotal

466 068 164 939 320 652 485 591 951 658 26 500 75 500 30 585 74 117 84 482 56 929 91 497 157 539 70 461 23 775 78 662 72 138 293 970 1 136 155 184 497

INCREMENTAL DU


Upgrading

Nodes

within

PPTN

Nodes

outside

PPTN

TOD BRTShort Term

North

Short Term

South

Cons. &

Infill North

East

Cons. &

Infill Mining

Belt

Redev.

Southern

Suburbs

Expansion

North

Expansion

South

Rest of

CityTotal

466 068 164 939 164 939 631 006 26 500 75 500 30 585 74 117 84 482 56 929 91 497 157 539 70 461 23 775 78 662 72 138 293 970 1 136 155 505 149

INCREMENTAL DU


Upgrading

Nodes

within

PPTN

Nodes

outside

PPTN

TOD BRTShort Term

North

Short Term

South

Cons. &

Infill North

East

Cons. &

Infill Mining

Belt

Redev.

Southern

Suburbs

Expansion

North

Expansion

South

Rest of

CityTotal

466 068 164 939 320 652 485 591 951 658 26 500 75 500 30 585 74 117 84 482 56 929 91 497 157 539 70 461 23 775 691 385 -260 273

INCREMENTAL DU


Upgrading

Nodes

within

PPTN

Nodes

outside

PPTN

TOD BRTShort Term

North

Short Term

South

Cons. &

Infill North

East

Cons. &

Infill Mining

Belt

Redev.

Southern

Suburbs

Expansion

North

Expansion

South

Rest of

CityTotal

466 068 164 939 0 164 939 631 006 26 500 75 500 30 585 74 117 84 482 56 929 91 497 157 539 70 461 23 775 691 385 60 379

EXISTING BACKLOG 2011

TOTAL

DEMAND

2030

SURPLUS

/DEFICIT

OPTION 3A: COMPACT CITY

OPTION 3B: COMPACT CITY (without backyard)


TOTAL

DEMAND

2030

SURPLUS

/DEFICIT


TOTAL

DEMAND

2030

SURPLUS

/DEFICIT


TOTAL

DEMAND

2030

SURPLUS

/DEFICIT

OPTION 2B: STRATEGIC AREAS AND REST OF CITY (without backyard)

SUPPLY

SUPPLY

OPTION 2A: STRATEGIC AREAS AND REST OF CITY

OPTION 1A: STRATEGIC AREAS

OPTION 1B: STRATEGIC AREAS (without backyard)


TOTAL

DEMAND

2030

SUPPLY

SUPPLY

SUPPLY

SUPPLY

TOTAL

DEMAND

2030


SURPLUS

/DEFICIT

POPULATION PROJECTIONS

2010 2030

DWELLING UNITS PROJECTIONS INCREMENT

2010 - 2030

SURPLUS

/DEFICIT

If the backyard rental units are formalised in-situ (Option 3B), there is sufficient land in the various

Strategic Areas (excluding the Northern and Southern Expansion Areas and the Rest of the City) to

accommodate the demand, with a small surplus capacity of about 60,379 units.

It should however be noted that the above results are based on the assumptions of the Base

Scenario. Furthermore, if the high population growth scenario as highlighted in Table 5 in this

document eventually realises in the City, it implies an additional 480,000 families which cannot be

accommodated within the Strategic Areas based on the estimated development capacity of these

areas.

1.2. Conclusive Summary

The Base Scenario as discussed above reflects a compact city scenario dominated by medium

and high density residential units in all the Strategic Areas in the City. It represents a strong

interventionist approach which results in extensive densification and infill development within all

the Strategic Areas. The residential yields resulting from the Base Scenario should be

considered to be the maximum.

The surplus capacity as illustrated for the various Options may in reality eventually prove to be

significantly smaller than anticipated in the Base Scenario due to a variety of factors e.g.

environmental constraints limiting the development capacity of areas, market conditions not

being conducive to higher density developments, or redevelopment of old areas etc. This

highlights the importance of the existing developable land within the Urban Development

Boundary of the City of Joburg as a strategic resource with limited capacity and which need to be

developed in an appropriate manner which optimally utilises the development potential thereof.

The public owned developable land within the Strategic Areas is even more important as it

represents opportunities to introduce affordable housing in all Strategic Areas in the City, and to

provide the associated community facilities to communities.

In order to achieve the desired densities within the Strategic Areas, the focus should also shift

towards promoting alternative medium and higher density residential typologies for the low,

middle and high income market.

In terms of the private sector this would require the City to actively promote the priority areas and

to supplement this with a number of direct or indirect incentives e.g. zoning rights, density

bonuses etc.

As far as public housing is concerned it would require a re-assessment of the current subsidy

scheme and the associated typologies and tenure alternatives resulting from it, as well as an

assessment of the institutional implications of such a change.

From the various Options highlighted above the importance/impact of the rental market, and

more specifically the informal rental market (backyard units) is evident. Because of the

magnitude of informal rental (± 320,000 units), and the limited financial and institutional capacity

of the CoJ, the City would need to seriously consider ways and means to formally accommodate

and manage small scale rental in various parts of the City – both in the former township areas

and in the medium and higher income residential areas.

Documents

SPATIAL PROPOSALS Future Housing Provision Principles · 2017-10-31 · Based on the Emerging Development Principles for future housing provision as listed above, as well as guidelines