99
100
use to include the concept of integrated living (Royal Haskoning DHV, 2012). Klug, Rubin &
Todes (2013), as cited in Lukhele (2014), indicates that the city’s intention with Cornubia was to provide housing development that combines only market rate and public-assisted units. This was also done to include combinations of fully subsidised low-income housing, and rental housing, with the intention to accommodate the gap market and affordable housing for the private market (Klug, Rubin & Todes, 2013; Lukhele, 2014). Klug et al. (2013) as cited in Lukhele (2014) indicates that Cornubia caters for the different income groups: (a) houses for those receiving full government subsidies, “for those earning less than R3 500, and on the other hand (b) there’s also a gap market housing for those earning between R3 500 and less that R10 000, and (c) free market/ affordable housing for households earning above R10 000” (Lukhele, 2014). Sutherland et al. (2015) further indicate that the project was initially proposed that the project should build 50 000 homes – with 20000 of these being subsidised. It was estimated that 1.2 million square metres and 400 ha devoted to a converted open space system. This was done in order to create 48 000 jobs and 15 000 constructions jobs, which would be sustainable for 15 years. The total investment of R24 billion was expected to generate rates of R 300 million per annum. Scholars like Sutherland et al. (2015) further attest that the project consist of five phases – the first phase was the experimental phase – that of developing 488 low- cost housing units. This was to be followed by phases 1-4, which would include the development of a mix of land uses. The business factory park was launched in 2014 together with phase 1A which consisted of BNG accommodation for poor households. It is recorded that beneficiaries moved from different informal settlements across the city were 151 for the first phase (Sutherland et al., 2015).
The rise of mega projects in South Africa provides a space for public and private partnerships between the different actors. The findings of the study conducted by Altshuler and Luberoff in 2003 corroborated the findings of studies on mega projects in the United States thus: “efforts to realize large-scale investment projects often provide an unusually revealing window on patterns of influence in urban development politics. Such projects involve huge commitments of public resources and often entail significant threats to some interests and values even as they promise great benefits to others” (Kennedy, Robins, Bon, Takano, Varrel & Andrade, 2014:
19).
Mega projects involve large housing investments, which responds to societal disparities through the provision of sub-standard housing in South African cities, which addresses the pro- growth/pro-poor agenda (Sutherland et al., 2011). It is also of significance to note that mega
101
projects should be implemented as planned, if not, the intended aims are not be achieved – and this result in chaos and mismanagement. Scholars such as Van Marrewijk et.al. (2008) and Capka (2004) reaffirm that mega construction projects’ meanings attest to the fact that these are huge investments projects, which are aimed at supporting governments in realising their social and economic development objectives. At the same time, these projects attract public and political attention, due to their impact on communities, environment and budgets (Othman
& Ahmed, 2013).
4.8.1. Challenges of mega projects
According to Majd and Tabibian (2015), megacity social dimensions of sustainable development can be reflected in population growth, population densities, life expectancy, immigration rates, socialisation, and inequality of income distribution, the rate of crime, shortages of houses for people of different socio-economic classes, slums, squatters, unemployment rate, and unhealthy living conditions (Majd & Tabibian, 2015). The following challenges of mega projects are discussed:
1. Over-optimism and over-complexity.
The majority of mega projects tends to underestimate costs and timelines, and overestimates the benefits. For competing priorities, information tends to be withheld until projects are deemed affordable, and this normally sparks interest in the project (Garemo, et al., 2015).
Lefebvre (as cited in Sutherland et al., 2011), argues that producing an intangible space enables actors to create a complete schedule, as well as a spatial procedure that serves the interests of a certain group. This results in the removal of anything that stands in the way of an interest group – and allows the voice of this powerful group to prevail and be held in space, as if it represents the views of the world.
As a result, Cornubia was based on spatial concepts, as argued by Sim, Sutherland and Scott (2015), which included condensing the city through the densification of urban development corridors, which were aimed at promoting the integration of the city, the new nodes in previously disadvantaged areas, and urban edges – which were to contain the sprawling of informal settlements, while at the same time, protecting agricultural and environmental resources, and opening space networks (Sim, et al., 2016). Scholars such as Hannan, Robbins and Scott (as cited in Hannan & Sutherland, 2015) argue that the development of mega projects has been marked by controversy, and has raised questions on whether they will bring long-
102
lasting benefits as promised to beneficiaries – while at the same time, raising questions on whether the city, in most cases, acts in the interests of all its citizens in the coming years.
2. Weakness in organisational design and capabilities
According to Jepsen and Eskerod (2009), actors in mega projects normally have an organisational setup, project leaders establish four or five structures, implementing the project from the top leadership. The structures consist of the following layers:
“Layer 1: Sub-contractor to contractor
Layer 2: Contractors to construction manager or managing contractor Layer 3: Construction manager to owner’s representative
Layer 4: Owner’s representative to project sponsor
Layer 5: Project sponsor to business executive” (Garemo, et al., 2015).
While Jespen and Eskerod (2009) suggests that in all projects stakeholder analysis requires:
“(1) identification of crucial stakeholders; (2) experiences of stakeholders and their contributions, opportunities concerning rewards for their contributions, and their power in relation to the project; (3) a decision to be made on the best strategy that would influence all stakeholders” (Jepsen & Eskerod, 2009).
Tomlinson (2011) indicates that, housing developments should be broken down into activities, which involve planning, procurement, project management and housing allocation.
a) Integrated development planning
Planning should be undertaken prior to housing delivery. Planning should be aimed at ensuring that resources are expended in ways that meet the objectives of the project, the expectations of beneficiaries, and that the intended goals are achieved – which is aimed at improving the quality of life of communities (Harrison, 2006). Quality in housing delivery is measured by the level of satisfaction of beneficiaries. If this is not achieved, projects will be cancelled, resulting in service delivery protests by communities. Therefore, municipalities should ensure that quality management is more than just testing, but ensuring that appropriate processes exist throughout the phases of the project (Mzini et al., 2013).
103 b) Procurement
According to Tomlinson (2011), procurement processes should not be compromised, as this will affect the quality of houses constructed. The kind of houses delivered; at all times reflect the manner in which contractors were procured. Supply chain management should be the key in ensuring that processes are not flawed. Municipalities are obliged to comply with tender processes as specified in the MFMA, of 2003. The set rules should centre on tender stipulations, evaluation and adjudication when procuring housing project managers and contractors. This ensures compliance with equitable and transparent processes as specified by law (Tomlinson, 2011).
c) Project management
Quality project management in housing projects will guarantee the success of the project during its life cycle. Project management phases include project preparation, handling and implementing contracts, periods for delivery, carrying out inspections, and fast tracking the payment system (Tomlinson, 2011). The success of housing delivery is dependent on the principles of sustainable development, integration with other disciplines in the planning, impact assessment, and strategic impact assessment (Mzini et al., 2013).
d) Housing allocation
The Housing Allocation Policy reaffirm that housing programme should not be confined to housing, but should also address other issues, which are aimed at creating viable communities.
This necessitates important changes to be made in the behaviour of all who are involved in the housing delivery process (DoH, 1994). In delivering houses, municipalities as developers are required by law to make sure that houses are allocated to qualifying beneficiaries. Programme managers and developers have the responsibility of ensuring efficient administration to ensure the transparent and proper usage of the limited resources (Tomlinson, 2011). As a result, Cornubia project aimed at addressing challenges of informal settlements from a holistic point of view. The project was expected to take into account the complex dynamics of settlements, with their origins form poverty, inequality and the continued spatial disregarding the poor (eThekwini Municipality, 2015).
3. Streamline permits and land acquisition
Another notable challenge for mega projects is the fact that it takes long for approvals to be granted than implementation itself. Permits should involve prioritising the project, clearly
104
defining roles and responsibilities of parties involved. Time frames should be clearly stated, while at the same leaving room for public participation (Garemo, Matzinger & Palter, 2015).
The Cornubia Development Framework Plan, which enabled the development of the pilot housing phase and the Retail Park, gave rise to the layout for Phase 2. The Development Framework Plan has been able to address constraints including topography geology, water resources, existing servitudes and services, roads and rail links, as well as limited access and opportunities for linkages (Royal Haskoning, 2015).
4.9. PRINCIPLES OF MIXED-USE HOUSING