David Kay and Dr. Richard Jackson, Geography

Over the last ten years, government programs have facilitated the redevelopment of many South African communities; however, for many the promise of redevelopment has been elusive. In 2002, there were an estimated 8 million people living in shack settlements in South Africa. From 1994 to 2004, the government had built over a million houses in order to provide adequate shelter for its citizens, but there are many more still in need of assistance.

Duncan Village is an informal settlement located near downtown East London, South Africa. There are an estimated 80,000 people living in shacks in Duncan Village. The Buffalo City Municipality is currently involved in a planning initiative aimed at housing the residents of Duncan Village. Much debate exists over the appropriate methods to use in redeveloping this densely populated shack town. Planners are striving to meet the challenges associated with this kind of community redevelopment, such as adequate housing, limited land availability, appropriate urban forms, and government requirements for housing subsidies.

During the summers of 2004 and 2005, I conducted a research project in East London, South Africa which explored the various viewpoints of those involved in the redevelopment of Duncan Village. The insights of planners, city officials, professors, and residents of Duncan Village were gathered over a six month period. From these insights a model incorporating effective planning principles was produced in order to raise awareness of urban renewal techniques currently being used in South Africa to improve the quality of life in low-income communities.

From this research, some main planning principles were identified as necessary for the successfully redevelopment of shanty towns in South Africa. Some of these principles include: pro-poor development policies at all levels of government; an enabling planning framework that seeks to meet the needs and improve the living circumstances of the under-developed community; effective participation of local residents and community based organizations; participatory, community urban design; integration between spatial, economic and social development planning; regularization of tenure rights; cultural recognition and preservation; effective and creative disaster management; appropriate scales of redevelopment; and a flexible, well-targeted housing subsidy policy.

However, despite years of careful research and planning in Duncan Village and increased awareness of local circumstances and lifestyles, the Buffalo City Municipality has still not been able to implement an effective system of public participation. As a result, development strategies are still not effectively reaching community based organizations, families and individuals, and local residents are still not empowered to affect substantial change in their community. This is largely due to a strong desire by the local government to maintain a coherent master plan, a culture of civil resistance within Duncan Village, and an untested local political system.

One reason public participation is lacking in Duncan Village may be because many local politicians and bureaucrats are determined to treat Duncan Village as a single community entity instead of a complex whole made up of many organizations and individuals. As a result, the municipality is struggling to deal with the many people who live in Duncan Village that don’t fit the criteria of approved planning and housing redevelopment solutions. Although a master planning approach may be required for bulk services such as engineering and infrastructure, a more effective pilot-project approach could be developed to implement housing projects that truly meet the needs of the people who live in the various neighborhoods of Duncan Village.

Another reason for the lack of effective public participation in Duncan Village stems from a culture of civil resistance that has developed over the years. During the Apartheid years Duncan Village became an extremely violent place as the community resisted the policies of forced removals. Today that culture still exists to a lesser degree and as a result, whenever public meetings become heated, rational conversation is often replaced by a ritual called Toyi Toyi. This ritual consists of angry residents participating in traditional dances that signify the community’s frustration with the government. Although Toyi Toying is a unique cultural trait, it often prevents meaningful dialogue between community residents and their local government.

The most crucial circumstance that is preventing the implementation of meaningful public participation stems from the structure of local governments in South Africa. In these new government systems, the local political councilor acts as the gate keeper of the people. Planners are not enabled to approach the community directly. This results in a process of development that is highly politicized. Local needs and long term development often becomes secondary to political expediency. With local elections set for January 2006, political instability and controversy surrounding the redevelopment initiative is on the rise, which, in turn, has made it practically impossible to implement development projects. In order for long term development and public participation to become effective, planners, development practitioners and community-based organizations need to be enabled to approach each other directly, outside of political structures, so that core redevelopment values become centered on the needs of the residents of Duncan Village and not the aspirations of politicians seeking reelection. There is a vital need for small scale, independent, open, creative space in which to engage in meaningful debate and communication so that residents of Duncan Village have other ways to participate in community development beside uncreative, public presentations and Toyi Toyi rituals.