3.1.2 Lessons for South Africa
The main lessons from the British social housing model are: the immense support of the government, the different uses of social housing in providing shelter for different people of the society and the initiatives employed to improve the image of the physical buildings. The British social housing sector has substantial financial support from the government. Annually, millions of pounds are advanced by governmental financial institutions to finance social housing institutions (Lux, 2001). The government generally provides considerable capital subsidies to cover the costs of developing acceptable quality units and provides funds to cover the running costs on an annual basis. The government also ensures that rents are affordable to the target population and provides initiatives to reduce land costs and tax incentives to registered social housing institutions. Social housing is also used as a tool for providing adequate housing for the vulnerable people of the society (i.e. the elderly and disabled). From this, the lesson learnt is the application of different building materials and architectural innovations used to create a suitable building image for an affordable housing development. This innovation curbs the general impression that affordable housing buildings are simple and unattractive.
There are several instruments that the government has used to achieve the objectives of housing policy. These include the provision of rent allowances to households on the demand side of the market, or of construction or exploitation subsidies to those supplying housing. The main Dutch social housing principles and policies are as follows:
• Freedom of contract and negotiation of parties in the market (rent policy): The freedom of contract is conditioned by protective rules in order to guarantee that tenants of social housing schemes can negotiate on equal financial footing with their landlords (Salet, 1998).
• Shared responsibility of central and local government: Municipalities have much more administrative freedom to make flexible use of building and renovation subsidies. Decision-making on social housing subsidies is not solely determined by the central government (Salet, 1998).
• Partnerships between housing associations and local municipalities:
Social housing associations are partners with the local authorities in formulating long term strategies and policies for social housing schemes (Dieleman, 1998).
• Private fund forming: Finance for social housing developments is now sourced from the private sector, whereas previously it had, for the most part, come from government. The establishment of the Central Fund and Guarantee Fund has helped to protect financially weaker housing associations and to limit their risk on free market loans. Therefore, housing associations handle their financial affairs via their ‘own’ bank in order to provide a buffer for difficult times (Salet, 1998).
• Active urban regeneration policy: There are two parts to the Urban Pilot Project. First is the Training Project in Field of Housing Environment which aims to train long term unemployed people from the district as specialists in the housing environment. By matching perceived needs with skills, the project plans to create employment for the long-term unemployed and improve living conditions in the area. The second is the Improvement of Rear Courtyards which aims to train unemployed residents within the framework of redesigning and preserving rear courtyards. This part of the
project is run along similar lines to the one described above and is carried out jointly with private companies, housing associations and local municipalities (Salet, 1998).
The Dutch social housing principles, subsidy and financing policies have made the social housing sector more responsive to the existing housing challenges. The most notable achievement is that there are hardly any ghettos in large Dutch cities because of cohabitation of low-income and middle-income households in the social rented sector. Currently, the social rental sector in the Netherlands is largely free of government control, and because it stands on its own feet there are some tough challenges facing housing corporations. These include steadily increasing rents;
sector is expected to become less attractive to people on modest incomes; tenants will become more dependent on housing allowances, management might be expected to become more difficult; financial viability will be severely tested by the markets if development programmes are to be undertaken; as in other countries, the Netherlands has concentrations of poor quality housing whose residents suffer disproportionately from unemployment and the other forms of deprivation that characterize social exclusion (Dieleman, 1998).
In responding to these challenges, the Dutch policy has been innovative in its urban policy. The Netherlands has an active urban regeneration policy which has created the opportunity to run domestic programmes alongside those funded by the European Union (EU). As in other member states, EU actions relating to housing have been restricted by the rules governing the structural funds, but the Urban Pilot Projects have provided an example of European funds playing a role in urban policy (Salet, 1998).
3.2.1 Purmerend Housing Scheme, Purmerend
Purmerend was designed to tackle the problem of financing by mixing owners with renters, distributing costs equitably among all tenants, providing common facilities to be used and paid for by the surrounding neighbourhood, sweat equity and creative financing. The scheme is located in a newly built extension of the town of Purmerend, about half an hour from Amsterdam. There are 71 households divided into ten clusters, each with a cluster kitchen. The units are strung together and curve round a garden but remain open at one end to the neighbourhood. Figure 3.3 shows a view of the housing scheme, the design of the façade is distinct to make the units look like traditional Dutch houses placed side by side (row housing). This feature was used on the building to give it character and avoid making it look like a typical block of flats. Though the units are aligned in a row system, each unit has its own personal access and space on the long balconies that runs across the building. The figure also shows the maximum use of space in the building: there is usable space under the roof of each unit.
Fig 3.3 View of the Purmerend housing scheme
(Collaborating communities, 1991)
Figure 3.4 shows the layout of the scheme. The layout is good and practical as the units have been laid out to form a courtyard creating a common space for recreation for the residents. The layout also allows residents to have a natural surveillance of their environment. Another important feature shown is the provision of a common house (shaded space labeled ‘A’), a space used by the housing
association and residents for administrative and extra-curricular activities. The spaces provided include an office, tuck shop, games room, crafts room, kitchen and music room.
Fig 3.4 Floor plan
(Collaborating communities, 1991)
3.2.2 Lessons for South Africa
The Netherlands social housing approach is based on partnerships with housing associations and the local municipalities, private funding, and community participation. Social housing is used as a tool for active urban regeneration and job creation. Around 75 percent of the rental sector consists of social housing in the Netherlands, compared to an average of 55 percent in Europe. Almost all dwellings in the Dutch social housing sector are owned and maintained by housing associations. The associations receive subsidies from the central government and have strong financial and social partnerships with their local municipalities (Boelhouwer, 1999). Another significant lesson of social housing in the Netherlands is the constant regulation of social housing institutions through the encouragement of a best practice regime. For institutions to access state funding and support, they have to prove acceptance and ongoing adherence to a range of
benchmarks set by a government appointed regulator. Social housing is not only used for shelter but also as a tool for urban rejuvenation and to create employment for long term residents. From the example, it is vital that social housing developments have common rooms, where residents can come together and interact. The common room is also a space for extra-curricular activities for children and teenagers such as arts and crafts (Fromm, 1991).