7. Mega-projects and sustainability in the city
7.2. Sustainable city principles in mega-project development
7.2.7. Ensure adequate community participation and democratic governance
Each of the projects have incorporated a long term vision in their planning, indicating that urban regeneration within the city has considered the need for such a vision. However, in the case of the Warwick Mall, a long term vision incorporating the current market may have been a more appropriate strategy; and the stadium and the Point have both encountered problems in terms of achieving these visions. Furthermore, all of the projects reflect a focus on a long term economic vision and success, rather than greater social and ecological sustainability. This suggests that although long term visions are developed within the city’s planning, there is a lack of coherence and an uneven focus, and it is thus uncertain whether they can contribute to creating a sustainable city.
based on accountability, transparency and good governance (Satterthwaite, 1999; Bassett et al, 2002; Bruzelius et al, 200232).
Effective participation and democratic governance were lacking in all three of the projects. This reflects the lack of participation, accountability and transparency which is encountered in many mega- projects (Swyngedouw et al, 2002; Flyvbjerg et al, 2003; Ehrenfeucht, 200433). Flawed participatory and consultation processes were highlighted for each project, which in the case of the stadium was primarily due to the pressures of the 2010 process which required the project to be fast- tracked by the SPU (Albert, 20/04/2010; Foster, 05/05/2010; Robbins, 22/04/201034). This highlights the framework of exceptionality which allows mega-projects to bypass official channels through the use of special agencies (Swyngedouw et al, 2002; Gellert and Lynch, 2003; Jones and Moreno- Carranco, 2007). In the case of the proposed mall, stakeholders were marginalised, and the development was presented to traders as a “fait accompli’, which resulted in the matter being taken to court, and the project subsequently being put on hold (Albert, 2009; Comins, 2009; Dorasamy, 200935). In the Point Development, issues arose as it was felt that the developers did not consider the concerns and ideas of the public, did not listen to their own specialists, and ignored local knowledge (Scott et al, 2006; Albert, 2009; Johnson, 200936).
Various concerns have also arisen surrounding governance regarding the projects. Although some applauded the decision to build a new stadium, others highlighted it as a political decision, as it was made by a combination of local politicians, bureaucrats, corporate interests and members of SAFA, and was considered a “vanity project” conceived with the aim of lining the pockets of a politically connected few (Bird, 2009; Robbins, 22/04/2010; Sole, 201037).This highlights mega-projects as elite playing fields, whereby an urban future is shaped in line with the aspirations of the most powerful segments of society (Swyngedouw et al, 2002).The use of “bully tactics” employed in attempting to
32 Lungo, 2002; McCarthy 2003; Mog, 2004; Newman, 2005; Roberts et al, 2009; Albert, 20/04/2010; Robbins, 22/04/2010; Sim, 30/04/2010.
33 Lehrer and Laidley, 2009.
34 Sim, 30/04/2010; Maharaj, 2011.
35 Kockott, 2009b; KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Government, 2009; Makhaye and Memela, 2009; Naran, 2009b;
Naran, 2009c; Robbins and Skinner, 2009; Skinner, 2009; Dorasamy, 2010; Albert, 20/04/2010; Maharaj, 2010;
Moolla, 25/08/2010; Robbins, 22/04/2010; Sim, 30/04/2010; Sole, 2010; Maharaj, 11/07/2011; Mbonambi, 2011;
www.ddp.org.za; www.ins.onlinedemocracy.ca; www.ipetitions.com; www.streetnet.org.za; www.abahlali.org;
www.iolproperty.co.za; www.property24.com.
36 Naidoo, 2009a; Vassilaros, 2009; Broughton, 2010; Clarke, 2011; Save Vetch’s Association, 2011;
www.sailingkzn.org.za.
37 Maharaj, 11/07/2011.
persuade the Sharks to move from the Mr Price Kings Park Stadium to Moses Mabhida was also noted (Bird, 2009; Tanner, 2009; Albert, 20/04/201038).
In terms of the mall it was suggested that the Municipality handled the proposal in a manner which was in contravention to their reputation for progressive and inclusive urban management initiatives and negotiations with traders, and this included the use of bully tactics and taking a dictatorial stance against them (Skinner, 2008; Comins, 2009; Dorasamy, 200939). According to Roothren Moodley, a member of the Warwick Junction Precinct Plan Stakeholders Forum, the city council “steamrolled”
their plans onto citizens and Pat Horn, co-ordinator of Durban-based street vendor association StreetNet International, said the Municipality had “completely and stubbornly refused to meet” with them for some time (www.ins.onlinedemocracy.ca). Plate 7.11 shows a confrontation between traders and Metro Police outside the EMM, as traders demand it be opened.
Plate 7.11: Metro Police guard the entrance to the EMM as traders demand it be opened (Dorasamy, 2009).
The city’s role as developer and regulator in the Point Development resulted in concern as it was felt that they were not able to be as rigorous in terms of sustainability as they would be otherwise, and they therefore did not fully consider the associated social and environmental issues (Johnson, 2009; Sim, 30/04/2010). This would also have been the case if the proposed mall had been approved, as the local state was directly involved in the development. This reflects one of the criticisms of mega-projects, where governments are in conflict in their dual roles as developer and regulator (Bassett et al, 2002; Bruzelius et al, 2002; van Marrewijk, accessed 10/05/2011).
Various other governance aspects of the Point Development have caused concern, including the use of bully tactics when dealing with the watersports clubs in the area. A number of court cases
38 Robbins, 22/04/2010; Scott, 22/04/2010; Sim, 30/04/2010; Sole, 2010; Maharaj, 11/07/2011; Maharaj, 2011;
www.durban.gov.za.
39 Kockott, 2009c; KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Government, 2009; Makhaye, 2009; Naran, 2009a; Robbins and Skinner, 2009; Skinner, 2009; Zulu, 2009; Foster, 05/05/2010; Maharaj, 2010; Moodley, 2010; Padayachee, 2010;
Rajah, 2010; Robbins, 22/04/2010; Saib, 2010a; Saib, 2010b; Saib, 2010c; Saib, 2010d; Saib and Bowman, 2010;
Maharaj, 11/07/2011; www.abahlali.org; www.ddp.org.za; www.ipetitions.com; www.streetnet.org.za.
were subsequently filed against the developers, resulting in the approval process being reviewed, and a consequent delay in the SCH construction until the present (Albert, 2009; Carnie, 2009; Mbonambi, 2009a40).
Decision-making that involves stakeholder participation is stipulated in the city’s policy documents (eThekwini Municipality, 2011), and the Municipality prides itself on its reputation for actively engaging as many of its citizens as possible (Sutcliffe, 2009). According to Hoosen Moolla (25/08/2010), Acting Head of iTRUMP, a bottom up approach is better than dictating from the top down; and according to Richard Dobson, former Head of iTRUMP; if people are included in the processes, and their urban uses and preferences are recognised, then they will start to buy into the city (www.thepropertymag.co.za (a)).
However, there is a lack of participation and democratic governance in current planning in the city, and within these projects (Albert, 2009; Albert, 20/04/2010; Maharaj, 11/07/2011). A top down approach to decision-making is also applied (Maharaj, 11/07/2011); and public-private partnerships are playing a role in compromising democratic governance, as public resources are inevitably diverted from projects that favour the poor, disadvantaged and marginalised towards supporting the needs of big business (Maharaj, 2010). This illustrates the failure of deliberative approaches in the face of power in mega-project development; and the role of bureaucracy whereby certain groups influence the development of these projects, despite any objections (Steinberg, 1987, cited in Van Der Westhuizen, 2007; Flyvbjerg et al, 2003; van Marrewijk, n.d.). These projects also reflect some of the drivers behind mega-projects, whereby they are viewed as tangible and monumental, and able to provide political benefits (Steinberg, 1987, cited in Van Der Westhuizen, 2007; Ehrenfeucht, 2004), resulting in participation and democratic governance being side-lined.
Urban regeneration in the city therefore lacks the incorporation of the principle of participation and democratic governance at any meaningful level, severely affecting the achievement of a sustainable city, as the citizens of a city are fundamental to its success.