Draft Gauteng Spatial Development Framework, 2030
Comments on the Draft Gauteng Spatial Development Framework, 2030 by Prof Philip Harrison, Prof Alison Todes, Prof Marie Huchzermeyer and Dr Margot Rubin
1.0 Introduction
The inputs offered below are in response to a call for comments on the Draft Gauteng Spatial Development Framework, 2030, which was prepared in terms of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013. We have had the opportunity to engage twice with officials from the Gauteng Planning Division, Office of the Premier. First, at a seminar arranged by the Centre for Urban and Built Environment Studies (CUBES) on 14 June, 2016, and second, at an Urban Lab, also involving planners from the City of Johannesburg on 21 June, which was arranged by the South African Research Chair in Spatial Analysis and City Planning (SA&CP). We appreciated the open and frank discussions on both occasions and the real willingness of provincial officials to engage around the contents of the draft document. As a follow-up, we are offering these written comments as a constructive critique which we hope will contribute to the further strengthening of what we believe is an impressive document. The draft GSDF is a long and complex document and we acknowledge that we have not had the opportunity to engage with all of its details and so the comments below are in terms of principle and broad outcome but we are willing to engage further in the process, as required.
2.0 Overall appraisal
We wish, first, to congratulate the Gauteng Planning Division on the document. It is a substantive document, well structured, with high quality analysis, and a range of significant recommendations. It is, for example, a considerable advance on the 2011 GSDF, and on other proposals for spatial development we have seen from provincial government. The document asserts the role of provincial planning while also remaining cognisant of the constitutional limits of provincial planning within South Africa’s complex structure of co-operative governance.
We appreciate the enormous complexities involved in producing framework of this sort. There are multiple spatial interests and positions at play, within and outside provincial government, and the Gauteng Planning Division has done a credible job in mediating between them, as well as bringing competent technical analysis to bear in the process. The document also provides a well-developed and carefully thought through set of principles (although we do suggest that the principle “spatial access” be included). The document does attempt to apply these principles bravely arguing, for example, that non-integrated settlements such as gated neighbourhoods should not be included in new development areas.
Most importantly, from our perspective, the GSDF has moved significantly in the direction of aligning the further development of human settlement with the space economy. We were deeply concerned with previous proposals from provincial government which suggested large-scale development of human settlements (“mega-projects”) away from established urban economies, creating the real risk of new commuting (dormitory) settlements or ghettoes of poverty, contrary to the stated principles of the National Development Plan. The GSDF does show a far stronger link between settlement and economy than the previous proposals. While our overall impression of the GSDF is positive we do have some concerns, which are outlined below.
3.0 Some concerns
3.1 Our first concern relates to the use of “polycentricity” as the binding concept. At one level polycentricity is a useful concept in mediating between positions and interests. It is a sort of “third way” that accommodates the need to direct development towards established urban areas and economies but also accepts that some development could happen within urban networks that extend towards peripheral areas. It also emphasises the importance of connectivity between places. The problem with the concept however is that may become a catch-all, accommodating all forms of development and providing no real spatial guidance. It can pander to the lowest common denominator. The polycentric network, as described, is very extensive and the concept may simply be used to legitimate urban sprawl. This danger is emphasised, for example, by a provision in the framework which supports 25% of new development in areas of low spatial priority. We would strongly advise revising the concept to one of “compact polycentricity” and to being far more precise and targeted in areas supported for new development.
3.2 We are concerned with the demographic underpinnings of the plan. A relatively high projected demographic growth path has been selected as the basis for the plan. This would seem contrary to current trends, and projections offered by Stats SA and the UN Population Division, for example. The StatsSA Community Survey for 2016 reveals an average annual growth rate for Gauteng of 2%, which is a reduction from the 3.6% for 1996-2011 and 2.7% for 2001-2011. The growth rates will almost certainly continue to decline as fertility rates in South Africa continue to drop and the urbanisation curve levels out. The UN Population Division estimated, for example, that the growth rates of the Central Witwatersrand which peaked at nearly 4.5% per annum in the late 1990s will have dropped to 0.96% for the period 2025-2030. Misreading the demographics could have serious consequences. It could lead to the incorrect conclusion, for example, that it may be possible to achieve both continued densification of existing urban areas and large-scale new settlement development. It suggests that we should be far more targeted in our approaches to further spatial development, a point we will address again later.
3.3 Similarly we need to be realistic about likely economic growth. We are currently in a period of constrained growth nationally and globally, and there is considerable uncertainty around the future, with analysts suggesting a prolonged period of sub-normal economic performance. There are also worrying indications that Gauteng Province is not performing significantly better than the national economy. As with our concerns around demography, our concern here is that the plan is not realistic about what may be achieved over the next fifteen years. There is a real danger of dispersing the economic and development energy of the province too widely, with limited overall impact.
3.4 The location of the urban poor in future development does need to be given explicit attention as this category accounts for around 50% of the population and state decision making around spatial location has (by omission or commission) far more effect on this group than any other. To what extent will the urban poor be accommodated through densification of existing area, and to what extent in new areas, and where? In what form will they be accommodated (how much through rental housing, for example)? What financing models will be used? There is some reference in the plan to “inclusionary housing” but, while this is important, it is likely to make up only a small part of the total housing need for lower income groups. We note that the GSDF does not deal directly with the issue of informality, a significant presence in the settlement and economic landscape of Gauteng. It is not clear, for example, what the position is in relation to backyard accommodation which has been a key instrument for densification in Gauteng’s metropolitan cities.
3.5 The key proposal in the GSDF is in fact the idea of focusing new development in a zone of high potential within the triangle created by the N1/R21/R24. We note that this is a resuscitation of the “Golden Triangle” proposal in the GSDF 2001 and also that there is no obvious link between the extensive technical analysis in the document and this proposal. In principle, however, we are not opposed – the proposal directs development towards an area with clear economic potential and is “politically sensible” as it engages the interface between the three metropolitan municipalities. We are, however, concerned that the area is too broadly and vaguely defined. It is a large area and in the context of the demographic and economic realities indicated above cannot be reasonably developed within the time frame of the plan. We note that much of the current development energy in the province is focused along the M1/N1 corridor between Johannesburg and Pretoria, on the eastern edge of the focus, and it is difficult to envisage success in consolidating this corridor as well in the extensive area identified within the triangle. More attention would need to be given to phasing and targeting if this proposal is retained.
3.6 In effect, given demographic and economic realities there is a possible contradiction between the idea of polycentricity and the proposal for spatial targeting in the ‘golden triangle’. It is unlikely that meaningful polycentric-type development can be achieved at the same time as the targeting proposed for the triangle; at least within the period up to 2030. This contradiction may become most apparent in the proposals for transport infrastructure. The extensive proposed freeway developments across the province are unlikely to support targeted development within the triangle. Development is likely to follow freeway construction whatever a spatial framework may propose with new transport infrastructure undermining spatial intentions. The areas of planned new intensification would also have to be considered carefully together with existing proposals for the expansion of the Gautrain network.
3.7 A critical concern for us is the interface between the GSDF and the municipal SDFs. The GSDF does “tile” the various municipal plans but doesn’t provide a detailed analysis of the core elements of these plans and how they relate to each other. The tiling is somewhat misleading as the use of different graphics, colours and mapping protocols between municipalities suggests a picture of extreme fragmentation and contradiction. The reality is somewhat more complex with some interesting connections in spatial policy across municipal boundaries. Overall, however, there is an apparent need to far greater attention to be given to alignment both between municipal SDFs and between municipal SDFs and the GSDF. The metropolitan municipalities in particular have developed over time rather sophisticated SDFs and it is not apparent how the value of these frameworks have been incorporated within the GSDF.
The Johannesburg SDF, which we are most familiar with, proposes to densify along transit corridors radiating from the inner city, with an understandably strong emphasis on the integration of the core city with Soweto. The GSDF effectively pulls development in an opposite direction – north east rather than south west – although there are points of possible intersection such as Johannesburg’s proposed corridor linking Sandton with Ekurhuleni’s Aerotropolis. It is noted also that Sandton is not explicitly recognised within the description of the polycentric network, despite Sandton being a primary gateway between South Africa and the world as Africa’s leading financial hub, recognised also in global financial rankings. We use these examples as illustrations of multiple possible disjunctures between provincial and metropolitan planning. Some of the apparent discrepancies between plans may have to do with differences between underlying spatial visions and thinking, and do require detailed, ongoing engagement in the spirit of co-operative governance. Others are at a more superficial level, such as the meanings given to words, but these do also need to be addressed. The “corridors” for example is used in multiple ways referring to scales and even concepts that are very different. It is a case of “same words, different meanings”. We note also the difference between the GSDF with its concept of “urban reserves” (a term which perhaps should be avoided given its historical references) and the City of Johannesburg’s continued commitment to an Urban Development Boundary. While this issue may not be easily addressed in the short term, it does need to be ultimately resolved for the sake of coherence in spatial governance. It does seem also that the provincial view on “urban densification” needs to be resolved. Does provincial government support urban densification and, if so, what does it actually mean by densification, and how does the provincial view accord with the metropolitan perspectives.
3.8 While the GSDF provides positive and clear principles for new spatial development, we remain concerned at the prospect of large new developments in poorly located areas. The spatial focus of the GSDF is relatively weak partly because of the nearly catch-all concept of polycentricity and the liberal application of numerical targets (e.g. the 25% in low priority areas). Why have a priority intensification zone if, in fact, an actual new city, or at least a large new settlement, can be built outside of it?
We note that there is much “devil in the detail”. In the case of this plan, some of the most significant detail is in the percentages allocated for new development in different areas. We have not had the opportunity to engage adequately with this but do believe that it requires careful interrogation.
4.0 Proposals
4.1 Our starting point in terms of spatial development is that the legacies of the colonial and apartheid past should be addressed by bringing the urban poor as close as possible to the economic core where jobs and livelihoods are concentrated. This should happen mainly through well managed densification, although there may be particular instances where new development is warranted. We think that this imperative overrides a range of others which were presented in the GSDF as arguments against a compaction strategy. We accept that there is a pragmatic argument, made internationally, for proactive management of urban expansion but in the specific context of the Gauteng City-Region where densities are already so low in international terms, and where spatial development is already so fragmented, that the overwhelming need is for spatial densification and integration.
4.2 Our “first prize” would be a spatial framework that directs new development to zones of intensification immediately around the greatest existing concentrations of jobs and economic activity, and around the mobility corridors that channel people to jobs and services. Our “spatial nightmare” would be further dispersion of settlement into new developments isolated from the economic core. We do however accept the possibility of an intermediary position, understanding the realpolitik of spatial planning. We do not think that the idea of polycentricity, as proposed as the guiding principle in the GSDF, is sufficiently well defined to provide this position. The proposal for an intensification zone within the N1/R21/R24 triangle comes closer. However, as indicated, this zone is too expansive for the demographic and economic realities of the province.
4.3 We would therefore propose far greater targeting within (and immediately adjacent) the proposed zone of intensification that builds on actual development dynamics in the province. The current major developments in Gauteng are on the N1 corridor between Johannesburg and Pretoria, including the massive Waterfall development. We effectively have here a city-in-the-making, although it is one that fails to meet the post-apartheid criteria of genuine inclusiveness. To the east of Waterfall, separated by a zone of high-end business, and a belt of small holdings, is the Tembisa-Ivory Park township complex. We suggest that the possibility exists for building South Africa’s first true post-apartheid city by bringing together these two spatially proximate but separated urban concentrations. This would also serve the purpose of integrating the city region as it consolidates linkages between Johannesburg and Tshwane, and Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni.
Focussing development in this area as well as intensification around historical urban cores and new public transit routes (as proposed in metropolitan SDFs) would, we think, be sufficient as target areas until 2030 (although, of course, the detailed calculations based on realistic demographic projections are required). For spatial targeting in this way to succeed, the “expansionist polycentrism” on which the GSDF is based would need to be reconsidered. The plan would at least need to support a “compact polycentrism” which actively seeks to consolidate the existing spatial footprint and contain sprawl.
4.4 Our second proposal is procedural. Whatever the substantive content of the GSDF, its prospects for implementation (given the realities of our constitutional framework) rest largely on the support that it receives from municipal government where, for example, many of the powers for land use management reside. It became apparent through our urban lab process that there are many areas for further discussion across the spheres of government and that adjusting time-frames in the plan approval process to allow for meaningful engagement would significantly strengthen the longer term prospects for the plan. We note also the risk the sector plans could work against the intentions of the GSDF. A particular concern relates to transport as development patterns tend to follow transport infrastructure. The current proposals around the extension to the freeway network may support an “expansionist polycentrism” but may be counteractive to a more targeted approach. Again, more time may be needed to achieve the alignment between the GSDF and sector-based planning.
Finally, we wish to express our appreciation for the opportunity to engage with the content of, and processes, around the GSDF, and indicate our willingness for further engagement.