Constancy and Change: Marlboro South as an interstice of marginalisation and development by South African Research Chair in Spatial Analysis and City Planning

8 Report 8 in the series Spatial Transformation through Transitâ&#x20AC;&#x2018;Oriented Development in Johannesburg.

Marlboro South CONSTANCY AND CHANGE: MARLBORO SOUTH AS AN INTERSTICE OF MARGINALISATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE GAUTENG CITY-REGION Lindsay Blair Howe

MARLBORO SOUTH

Partners

Agence Française de Développement (AFD) City of Johannesburg (CoJ) South African Research Chair in Spatial Analysis and City Planning, University of the Witwatersrand (SA&CP, Wits)

Steering committee members

Alexandra Appelbaum (SA&CP) Camille Chastagnol (AFD) Arthur Germond (AFD) Prof. Philip Harrison (SA&CP) Prof. Paul Jenkins (Wits) Herman Pienaar (CoJ) Dr. Margot Rubin (SA&CP) Prof. Alison Todes (Wits) Martha Stein-Sochas (AFD) Liana Strydom (CoJ) Dylan Weakley (CoJ)

Editors

Prof. Philip Harrison, Dr. Margot Rubin and Alexandra Appelbaum

Project manager

Alexandra Appelbaum

Authors

Dr. Margot Rubin and Alexandra Appelbaum

Spatial Transformation through Transit‑Oriented Development: synthesis report

Dr. Margot Rubin

The City as a Laboratory: Experimentation, Observation and Theorisation from Urban Labs

Dr. Sylvia Croese

International case studies of Transit-Oriented Development-Corridor implementation

Dr. Kirsten Harrison

Transit Corridors and the Private Sector: Incentives, Regulations and the Property Market

Neil Klug

The more things change, the more they stay the same: a case study of Westbury, Coronationville and Slovo Park informal settlement

Dr. Tanya Zack

Platform to an Arrival City: Johannesburg’s Park Station and Surrounds

Alexandra Appelbaum

Contestation, transformation and competing visions: a study of Orange Grove and Norwood

Lindsay Howe

Constancy and Change: Marlboro South as an interstice of marginalisation and development in the Gauteng City-Region

Prof. Umakrishnan Kollamparambil

Multiple Words and Experiences: Conditions of Life and Work along the Corridors of Freedom

Research assistance

Emmanuel Ayifah Kwanda Lande Mamokete Matjomane Lucky Nkali Lyle Prim

Survey company

Outsourced Insight

Maps

Alexandra Appelbaum and Reitumetse Selepe

Photographs

Mark Lewis

Historical photographs

Museum Africa Collection

Copy editing

Kate Tissington and Alexandra Appelbaum

Design and layout

Louise Carmichael

MARLBORO SOUTH

At the time that these reports were researched and written, the City of Johannesburg was using the term Corridors of Freedom to refer to the Louis Botha, Empire Perth and Turffontein Strategic Area Frameworks. Although the name is currently under review we have used the original terminology throughout the reports. All quantitative data referred to without an explicit reference is drawn from the survey conducted by Outsourced Insight as part of the Spatial Transformation through Transit-Oriented Development project. 1200 people (a mix of residents, business owners and users) were surveyed in the four case study areas of this report series. All mapped data was also drawn from this survey. © City of Johannesburg 2016 To access the original data please contact the South African Research Chair in Spatial Analysis and City Planning, University of the Witwatersrand. www.wits.ac.za/sacp

Referencing the report: Howe LB (2016) “Constancy and Change: Marlboro South as an interstice of marginalisation and development in the Gauteng City-Region”. Report 8. Spatial Transformation through Transit‑Oriented Development in Johannesburg Research Report Series. South African Research Chair in Spatial Analysis and City Planning. University of the Witwatersrand: Johannesburg.

MARLBORO SOUTH

Executive summary The Spatial Transformation through Transit-Oriented Development in Johannesburg report series is the product of a project undertaken between the Agence Française de Développement (AFD), the City of Johannesburg (CoJ) and the NRF South African Research Chair in Spatial Analysis and City Planning at the University of the Witwatersrand. The project aimed to provide operational support to, and empirical evidence for, the City of Johannesburg’s Transit‑Oriented Development (TOD) programme – at the time known as the Corridors of Freedom (COF). It was a unique and important collaborative endeavour, in which the project proposal, research questions and final approach were co-produced by the three partners. The reports cover a range of topics, from an international comparison of TransitOriented Development Corridors, to an in-depth study of the regulatory, institutional and incentive environments in the COF, and the response from the private sector. It also included a survey of 1 200 residents, users and businesses and an indepth qualitative case study analysis of four nodes: Marlboro South; Park Station Precinct; Orange Grove and Norwood, and Westbury, Coronationville and Slovo Park. The case studies encompassed a wide range of the environments along Johannesburg’s corridors, including older suburbs, informal settlements, townships, public housing stock, industrial areas and transit nodes in the inner city. The team consisted of academics, officials, consultants and community members. Methodologically, all reports relied on academic and media sources, with the majority consisting of an integrated analysis of survey findings and key stakeholder interviews. The summary that follows looks at the key points from each report and offers a concise sense of the main findings.

Key findings: • The international experience supports the case for transit corridors, noting that they are useful and necessary planning instruments in urban regeneration – improving sustainability; increasing access for poorer communities, and improving rates bases in strategic areas. • Transit corridors have been associated with an improved municipal fiscus that is able to provide denser urban environments with consequently higher efficiencies in the urban form. • The current forms and institutional arrangements of TOD corridors in the CoJ demonstrate much promise and have some of the key features of successful corridors found elsewhere, i.e. a lead department with high levels of technical skill. • However, there is a need for greater coherence at both the planning and implementation level, and a need for more buy-in from all departments in the CoJ. • The CoJ has set an ambitious approach to the development of the Corridors – attempting to create a ‘guided’ enabling environment for the private sector that incentivises and attracts investment into these sites, whilst balancing the needs of the public good, and the larger

III

MARLBORO SOUTH

•

developmental agenda. There are some important locations that will potentially satisfy private sector interests of lowered risk and higher demand; these include affordable housing along Louis Botha Avenue and investment opportunities in the Knowledge Precinct. The TOD programme has a long-time horizon. However, after just four years it has seen some successes, including the provision and use of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) by certain communities; significant public environment and infrastructure upgrades, and the construction of vital services, such as clinics in areas that were previously under-served. In order for the impact of TOD – which extends beyond just the BRT – to be maximised, the City must foster a multi-modal transport system, including the BRT, Gautrain, commuter rail, and minibus taxis. Across the Corridors it is clear that there is significant youthful energy directed towards micro-businesses, with many residents starting new enterprises. Louis Botha Avenue, Marlboro South and Park Station are already showing signs of being complex multi-use sites that attract people from all over South Africa and the continent. The transit corridors already have an important economic function in that they are attractive sites due to their accessibility and the ability of residents to save on transport costs. However, demand is forcing up the price of commercial and residential property, making these areas inaccessible for poorer households.

Nodal findings: Each node faces a set of specific conditions that require particular engagements and services. • Westbury, as a site of older public housing stock, faces severe social pathologies, and very low rates of employment. Residents feel isolated and parochial – despite being quite close to the inner city in terms of physical distance – and there is a need to consider social infrastructure as a key future intervention. • Slovo Park as an informal settlement requires better services and housing but also greater participation and engagement with residents about their future. • Louis Botha Avenue (Orange Grove in particular) is mixed-use and mixed-income area and has important businesses varying in size. Here care needs to be taken to support the organic processes of informal and formal entrepreneurship and to avoid potential gentrification and displacement

that could result from interventions. While the Paterson Park housing project is a vital intervention, the governance dynamics in the area provide important lessons for the CoJ in its future interventions in middle-class areas. • Marlboro South is an area of enormous potential, but has high rates of poverty and very poor living conditions. It is very well located and has a number of businesses, at a variety of scales, which would like to remain. This area requires housing interventions, service upgrades and consideration of the urban environment, especially safety and security. • Park Station Precinct, as arguably the most important transit node in Johannesburg, suffers from a governance crisis and as a consequence has not been able to capitalise on its cosmopolitan and vibrant nature. There is a lack of support for the economic activities in the area; insufficient affordable accommodation; and the station requires better linkages into the fabric of the inner city.

Recommendations: • Currently, there is a ‘toolbox’ of incentives that is being developed to enhance partnerships with private sector developers, and there is evidence to suggest that this could be enhanced by considering questions of urban management; the release and development of state-owned land, and examining the development of demand – rather than supply-side investments. • Safety and security, questions of urban management, and employment were themes that consistently appeared across the corridors. The City needs to pay close attention to these concerns, as they are affecting all aspects of the Corridors, such as the quality of life for residents and the potential future investment from private developers. • Public participation protocols require rethinking and possibly reconfiguration. In their current formulation they are not sufficiently able to include the voices of some of the poorest and most marginalised. They are also incorrectly conceptualised as information-sharing sessions, rather than real engagement or consultation. • Furthermore, public participation needs to be seen as part of long term-relationships with communities and stakeholders that occur throughout the process rather than a once-off compliance-led activity. • Given the need for cross-sectoral and interdepartmental co-ordination, area-based management models could be highly effective in addressing these issues and should be

considered as a way of addressing the host of differentiated needs across the transit corridors. • The current practice of having ‘point people’ – particularly within the Johannesburg Development Agency (JDA) – dedicated to specific nodes and corridors is excellent and should be continued. • All processes in the corridors must be supported by up-to-date websites that are current with ease of access to all relevant information. • The CoJ needs to promote and publicise its achievements, and let the general public and other departments know what it has accomplished. • Exceptional care needs to be taken to ensure that built environment interventions do not worsen conditions in vulnerable communities, highlighting the need for better empirical evidence and consultation before implementation. • Built environment interventions must be complemented with social development and engagement in order for the full potential of the transit corridors to be realised, in terms of addressing the social and economic aspects of marginalisation. • Overall, there is much to be learned from the first few years of the programme that can improve the CoJ’s TOD initiatives going forward: better engagement and participation; clearer plans; better marketing and overall communication within and outside the CoJ, and careful consideration of the limits of built environment interventions. In short, the research project revealed that transit corridors are an effective programmatic choice in restructuring the spatiality of the City of Johannesburg and dealing with some of the most intractable urban problems; there are a range of ways to improve Johannesburg’s TOD programme going forward. To realise the full value of the TOD vision, it is necessary for the CoJ to continue the programme with the vigour it has demonstrated thus far. The dedicated and skilled teams in the City have already been able to achieve some successes, and with the evidence base that this study now offers, interventions and plans can be more finely honed and refined to focus in on specific community needs, whilst addressing questions of a declining fiscus and the need to restructure and reinvigorate the City of Johannesburg. This project also included a series of urban labs – a number of engagements between City officials, academics, members of civil society and the private sector and other key stakeholders – on particular issues related to Johannesburg’s future. This report is also included in the series.

MARLBORO SOUTH

63 businesses interviewed

Marlboro South 01

Marlboro South is a mixed-use site. Its location respective to development initiatives, and its historic proximity to the financial center of Sandton, gives it great potential to act as a flagship project for socially just development.

The four core development challenges in Marlboro South are: zoning, services, ownership, and stakeholder interaction.

Its history is tied to that of Alexandra, leading to tension over resource allocation as well as optimism for development on underutilized sites. Innovative strategies are required to unlock the potential of the land.

Large-scale factories

opportunity that will unfold if we create more sustainable livelihoods.”

Residents of Marlboro South live under a variety of conditions, some extremely precarious. “Residential factories” characterize the area, most of which have limited (and/or illegal) access to basic utilities; however, they have highly organized social structures and cite high levels of interpersonal support. While residents are often described as newcomers or outsiders, 30% of survey respondents were born in Marlboro South and 66% are originally from the City of Johannesburg or the Gauteng Province. Many have resided in the area, some even in the same dwelling, since the late 1980s or early 1990s. There is potential for job creation based on existing economic activities conducted on site. Without consultation of the general population (not merely embedded political organizations) there is high potential for contestation and low potential for acceptance by local stakeholders: “Nothing for us without us.” A socio-technical solution alone cannot generate change in township environments, but settlements that focus on human development have the long-term potential to develop an area from within: “Housing is not a problem we’re going to solve; it’s an

MARLBORO SOUTH

Public spaces and nodal development of Marlboro South (educational, cultural, and recreational facilities) could act as a bridge to Marlboro Gardens, Linbro Park, and beyond to Modderfontein and Frankenwald. Residents most want safe places for children to study and to play. Positive statements about the future of conducting business and generating profit in Marlboro South were typically accompanied by “if” qualifiers: if the area is rezoned, if consistent utility services are provided, if the vacant land can be activated, or if the government will engage with us. 17.5% of businesses cited area cleanliness as their primary concern, while 14.5% were most concerned about municipal services. These concerns are shared by residents, whose top concerns are overcrowding, utility service provision, and pollution. A mere 1% of area stakeholders were aware of the Corridors of Freedom initiative, indicating that the vision for the Corridors has not been adequately communicated. This lack of transparency can preclude stakeholders from understanding how government intentions will impact their everyday lives, and hinders the potential positive ramifications of local actors becoming “custodians of the results.”

39.7%

27%

20.6%

12.7%

28% informal enterprises

retail

services

catering

motor industry

67.7% business owners live within 1-2 km walking distance of their enterprise

28% businesses opened because their customers were neighbors, their workplace was close to home, or it was a secure place.

business Expenditure per month

26.7% isiZulu 11.7% Sesotho 10% Sepedi 9.9% Xitsonga

utilities

rent R14,656 [average]

security R2,590 [average]

R3,941 [average]

58.6% 56.6% 57.8%

78%

higher than mean averages from other areas

30%

of business owners originate from South Africa

Marlboro South

66.3%

Residents originate from

Gauteng

residents’ transit 48.1% 28.7% 11.1% 7.5% other

Living conditions 30.8%

52.7%

16.5%

Improved

Unchanged

Worsening

minutes average

4.6%

Challenges in the area

R1500 R2500 Average monthly income

42%

unemployed

unemployment

crime

22.8%

Don’t know or won’t disclose income

poor services

overcrowding

MARLBORO SOUTH

Table of Contents 01 INTRODUCTION: MARLBORO SOUTH AS AN URBAN PATCHWORK

1.1.

Outline of Report

02 PROFILE OF MARLBORO SOUTH: SHAPED BY CONTROVERSY

2.1. 2.2.

Origins of the Urban Patchwork Formation of a Spatial Identity

08 09

2.2.1. 2.2.2. 2.2.3. 2.2.4.

10 11 14 16

2.3.

Recommendations

Planning control and socio-spatial contestation: 1948-1986 “Orderly urbanisation” and mushrooming residential factories: 1986-2001 Urban renewal and uncertain futures: 2001-2012 A shift in scales and transformative strategies: 2012-present

03 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS: A MIXED-USE ZONE

3.1.

Perceptions of Constancy and Change in Marlboro South

3.1.1.

Existing businesses and micro-enterprises

3.2. Challenges of Service Delivery and Relationship to the State 3.3. Cycles of Decline and Development 3.4. Relationship to the Corridors of Freedom 3.5. Recommendations

25 26 29 30

04 SOCIAL CONDITIONS: ADAPTIVE RE-USE OF THE INDUSTRIAL TYPOLOGY

4.1.

“Fences and Neighbours”: Relations Between Actors in Marlboro South

4.1.1. 4.1.2. 4.1.3. 4.1.4.

32 34 34 36

Characterising residents Access to infrastructure Relationships between residents and businesses Networks with the state and civil society

4.2. Residential Factories as a Settlement Typology 4.3. Social Milieus and Development Initiatives 4.4. Recommendations

37 43 44

05 DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES OF MARLBORO SOUTH IN THE CORRIDORS OF FREEDOM

5.1. 5.2.

The Louis Botha SAF Core Development Challenges for Marlboro South

47 49

5.2.1. Zoning 5.2.2. Service delivery 5.2.3. Property ownership 5.2.4. Resident and stakeholder interaction

49 49 52 52

06 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

07 REFERENCES 57

VII

MARLBORO SOUTH

Abbreviations and Acronyms

MARLBORO SOUTH

VIII

Figure 1:

Context map of the transit-oriented development corridors and case study areas in Johannesburg

Albonico Sack Metacity Architects and Urban Designers

Figure 2:

arlboro South in relation to the other case study areas in the Spatial Justice through M Transit-Oriented Development report series

ATA

Alexandra Taxi Association

Figure 3:

Map of Marlboro South

BRT

Bus Rapid Transit

BTA

Bantu Tenants’ Association

Figure 4:

Home languages of Marlboro Gardens residents, according to the 2011 census (StatsSA 2011)

CBD

Central Business District

Figure 5:

Home languages of Marlboro South residents and business owners, according to the survey

CBO

Community-Based Organisation

Figure 6:

Map showing Ward 108 (Municipal Demarcation Board 2009)

COF

Corridors of Freedom

Figure 7:

Map showing Ward 109 (Municipal Demarcation Board 2009)

CoJ

City of Johannesburg

CORC

Community Organisation Resource Centre

Figure 8:

Streetscape emphasizing the contrast of formal and informal businesses (Mark Lewis 2016)

CPF

Community Policing Forum

Figure 9:

Map of business types in Marlboro South

FLISP

Finance Linked Individual Subsidy Programme

Figure 10: Location of suppliers to Marlboro South businesses

GAAH

Greater Alexandra Automotive Hub

Figure 11: Typical configuration of a tuckshop and residence (Mark Lewis 2016)

GADF

Greater Alexandra Development Forum

GCR

Gauteng City-Region

Figure 12: Marlboro South

GCRO

Gauteng City-Region Observatory

Figure 13: Contrast of informal businesses and residential factories (Mark Lewis 2016)

GED

Gauteng Department of Economic Development

Figure 14: Streetscape showing informal recyclers in Marlboro South (Mark Lewis 2016)

GIFA

Gauteng Infrastructure Financing Agency

Figure 15: Configuration of businesses and residences in 2011 (Howe and Joos 2012)

GMS

Growth Management Strategy

Figure 16: (Howe and Joos, updated with Lucky Nkali)

ISN

Informal Settlement Network

JDA

Johannesburg Development Agency

JOSHCO

Johannesburg Social Housing Company

Figure 18: Land owned by the City and Province (hatched on the map)

JPC

Johannesburg Property Company

Figure 19: Number of years survey respondents have been residing in Marlboro South

JRA

Johannesburg Roads Association

Figure 20: Respondents’ reasons for residing in Marlboro South

LIDP

Local Integrated Development Plan

Figure 21: Residential factory electrical system (Mark Lewis 2016)

MIBA

Marlboro Industrial Business Association

MWCC

Marlboro Warehouse Crisis Committee

Figure 22: Modes of transport relied upon by residents

SAF

Strategic Area Framework

Figure 23: Actor-network diagram based on the narrative of Charles Gininda (2016)

SANCO

South African National Civic Organisation

Figure 24: A room in a residential factory, where a gas lap is utilised for light (Mark Lewis 2016)

SDF

Spatial Development Framework

Figure 25: (Howe and Joos 2012)

SDI

Slum/Shack Dwellers International

Figure 26: Elevation of 44 2nd Street residential factory in Marlboro South (Howe and Joos 2012)

TOD

Transit-Oriented Development

Figure 27:

Exterior of residential factory in Marlboro South (Mark Lewis 2016)

UDF

Urban Development Framework

UDZ

Urban Development Zone

Figure 28: Interior of residential factory at 44 2nd Street in Marlboro South (Mark Lewis 2016)

Figure 29: Rashuma Village ‘temporary housing’ (Mark Lewis 2016)

Figure 30: Social spaces created in the entryways of residential factories (Mark Lewis 2016)

ADF

Alexandra Development Forum

ARP

Alexandra Renewal Project

ASM

Map illustrating the reasons survey respondents chose to locate their business in

Elements of change introduced between 2011 and 2015

Figure 17:

urrent configuration of businesses and residences as of August 2016 C (Howe and Joos 2012)

Floor plan of 44 2nd Street residential factory in Marlboro South

List of Tables and Figures

MARLBORO SOUTH

INTRODUCTION: MARLBORO SOUTH AS AN URBAN PATCHWORK The area known as Marlboro South, and occasionally as Marlboro Industrial Township1, has in the past often remained hidden in the Gauteng planning discourse. However, because it is an area of deep marginalisation, yet simultaneously one of hope and potential, it is a valuable and even paradigmatic case study of urban development in Johannesburg. Marlboro South functions as a microcosm of the discussions on economic and social development that are key to the policies of the Corridors of Freedom (COF). Its history is intricately linked to that of Alexandra township, and its contemporary populations are highly politicised, exhibiting a significant mistrust for urban planning, which was a key tool of the apartheid regime. As far as a settlement typology is concerned, it manifests most of the characteristics described in Transit‑Oriented Development (TOD) language: it is compact, has a number of job opportunities and residential areas in proximity to one another, and it will be near the new Rea Vaya bus rapid transit (BRT) development corridor. As such, development of Marlboro South could unlock considerable potential as a node for Alexandra and beyond; however, the processes of change in the area also face considerable challenges. Understanding several economic and social characteristics of Marlboro South will be crucial for its future development. These include: • Evolution of the area from industrial to mixed‑use • Precariousness of residents • Fragility of relations between residents and the businesses present • Tenuousness of relations between stakeholders and government structures (in particular the lack of consultation and fear of change and its ramifications by all parties in the area) • Necessity of consulting with local actors and ensuring that participation reaches beyond political party representatives or committees Across businesses and residents in Marlboro South, some of the most urgent concerns gleaned from extensive surveying and qualitative interviewing were related to tenure insecurity, with businesses citing irregular utility service delivery, petty theft and client discomfort in the area. Residents are equally affected by truncated services and remain unsure if they will be moved or evicted from the spaces they occupy. Overwhelmingly, actors in the area think the City of Johannesburg (CoJ) is unwilling to act because the area is zoned industrial, yet the residents cannot be moved either until acceptable alternative housing is provided.

MARLBORO SOUTH

Businesses, residents and developers state that the City seems perpetually unable to provide a solution and progress beyond this stalemate. By and large, most of the interviewees welcome development, however residents would rather have no development at all than something they do not need or are not consulted about. Businesses too want permission to represent their own interests and develop independently. Marlboro South is considered by some area stakeholders – particularly residents and business owners – to have a distinct and separate identity from the surrounding areas. Other stakeholders would rather see the area folded into Alexandra, or the greater development frameworks linking the area to the rest of the Gauteng Province. As such, whether or not this area will continue to act as a mixed-used site at the interstice of marginalisation and development is tied to the fate of Alexandra, as it has been throughout its existence. Development in the area is currently under consideration by both state and private actors, posing a series of very different challenges for area stakeholders and raising the question: for whom are the Corridors of Freedom? Who ought to occupy this space, and what will development do for the existing conditions? The information in this report was gleaned from in‑depth, qualitative interviews conducted by the

This report uses the term Marlboro South for the area due to its prevalence among literary sources and interviewed experts. It is also historically relevant, as the area was founded in relation to its northern neighbour, Marlboro Gardens, to serve as an industrial buffer zone to Alexandra.

MARLBORO SOUTH

City of Tshwane

City of Johannesburg author, primarily in July and August of 2016, as well Louis Botha Development as a quantitative survey commissioned in the context Corridor of the project. These findings were confirmed through literature review and archival material wherever Empire PerthaDevelopment possible. However, finding information on Marlboro Corridor South from an archival perspective proved to be a Turffontein Development considerable challenge. The relatively recent history of Corridor the area (which was established with the re-enacted Soweto Development Group Areas Act in 1966 yet developed just over 35 years ago) and the tumultuous period of South Corridor African history in which it began must be taken into Marlboro South account in communicating the area’s narrative. As a Orange Grove and much of the information included in this report result, Norwood came from interviews with City and provincial officials, the extremely detailed publication Alexandra: Park Station and Precinct A History published by Bonner and Nieftagodien Westbury, Coronationville in 2008. The analysis also includes a significant and Slovo Park number of interviews that acknowledge actors in Highway the area as legitimate experts on their environment. Primarily targeted for interviews were current and Arterial Roads former planning officials and urban designers; Rea Vaya BRT political representatives; members and leaders of community‑based organisations (CBOs); business owners, ranging from factory managers to spaza shop owners; and the residents of the warehouses and informal settlements for which Marlboro South is infamously known. This case study reveals the reality of these local actors in the context of the development agenda outlined in the COF project by the City.

N1 N14

Midrand

Mogale City

Roodepoort

Sandton N3

Randburg M1

Johannesburg CBD

Ekurhuleni Soweto

Turffontein

Sow e to

N17

N12

City of Tshwane

City of Johannesburg

Westonaria

Louis Botha Development Midvaal Corridor Empire Perth Development Corridor

Midrand

Emfuleni

Coordinate System: GCS Hartebeesthoek 1994 Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Date: 2017/05/19 Units: Degree

Sandton

City of Johannesburg Louis Botha Development Corridor

Johannesburg CBD

Turffontein

Empire Perth Development Ekurhuleni Corridor

Turffontein Development N17 Corridor Soweto Development Corridor N3

1.1. Outline of Report

Turffontein Development Corridor Soweto Development Corridor

3.25

6.5

Marlboro South Orange Grove and Norwood Park Station Precinct Westbury, Coronationville and Slovo Park Highway

19.5

26 Km

The report is structured in five major sections. Section 2 presents a historical profile of the area, including current demographics, background to the area (structured around four phases), and plans and challenges related to the COF. Section 3 provides an assessment of Marlboro South’s current economic conditions, while Section 4 is an analysis of its contemporary social conditions and structures. Section 5 reflects on the unique aspects of the area that are relevant to future development and the COF. Finally, Section 6 provides a conclusion to the report and a range of recommendations.

Arterial Roads Rea Vaya BRT

Marlboro South Orange Grove and Norwood FigurePark 1: Context of the transit-oriented development corridors and case study areas in Johannesburg Station map Precinct

Westbury, Coronationville and Slovo Park

MARLBORO SOUTH 03 Highway Arterial Roads

MARLBORO SOUTH

City of Tshwane Marlboro South

Orange Grove and Norwood

Park Station Precinct Westbury, Coronationville and Slovo Park

Sandton

Louis Botha Development Corridor Marlboro

Randburg

Soweto Development Corridor

Rea Vaya BRT

Marlboro South

! !

Orange Grove and Norwood

Turffontein

Park Station Precinct Coordinate System: GCS Hartebeesthoek 1994

Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Sandton Units: Degree

Date: 2017/05/19

Orange Grove and Norwood M1

Park Station Precinct Westbury, Coronationville and Slovo Park Louis Botha Development Corridor

Total Garage Wynberg !

! !

! ! !

! !

6 Km

¬ &

0 0.0750.15

Coordinate System: GCS Hartebeesthoek 1994 Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Date: 2017/05/19 Units: Degree

! Marlboro South

Louis Botha Development D !

D !

¬ & 0.45

Rashuma Village

Alexandra Renewal Project Highways

Marlboro Gardens

Arterial Roads

Greater Alexandra Automotive Hub !

0.6

Open Spaces Km

0 0.0750.15

0.3

0.45

Highways

0.6 Km

Arterial Roads Main Roads

Marlboro South ¬ & Louis Botha ¬ Development & Corridor

¬ &

Alexandra Renewal Project

! !

0.3

¬ & City of Tshwane

Open Spaces

Local Roads Rea Vaya BRT

! ! ! Schools

¬ & ! !

¬ Health Facilities & ! ! D !

Recreation Centre Police Stations

Main Roads

Total Garage Wynberg

Local Roads

! Greater Alexandra Automotive Hub !

Arterial Roads

! !

¬ &

Arterial Roads

Highway

MARLBORO SOUTH

! !

¬ Marlboro Gardens &

¬ & Turffontein Development FigureCorridor 2. Marlboro South in relation to the other case study areas in the Spatial Transformation through Transit-Oriented Development report series Soweto Development Johannesburg CBD Corridor

! !

Soweto Development Corridor

Marlboro Rea Vaya BRT Empire Perth Development Corridor

Alexandra

City of Tshwane

Turffontein Development Corridor

Highway

Police Stations

! !

Coordinate System: GCS Hartebeesthoek 1994 Datum: 1994 0.75Hartebeesthoek 1.5 3 4.5 Date: 2017/05/19 Units: Degree

Empire Perth Development Marlboro Corridor

Marlboro South

Recreation Centre

! ! D !

Alexandra

! !

Rashuma Village

Corridor

Louis Botha Development Corridor

City of Tshwane

! !

! Schools

¬ Health Facilities &

Turffontein

Westbury, Coronationville 4.5 6 Km and Slovo Park

Rea Vaya BRT

Rashuma Village

Total Garage Wynberg

! !

Local Roads

¬ &

City of Tshwane

Main Roads

Rea Vaya BRT

Johannesburg CBD

Arterial Roads

Marlboro Gardens

Greater Alexandra Automotive Hub

Arterial Roads

0.75 1.5

Highways

Highway

Arterial Roads Total Garage Wynberg

Westbury, Coronationville Marlboro Gardens and Slovo Park

Soweto Development Corridor Greater Alexandra Automotive Hub

Highway

Soweto

Open Spaces

Turffontein Development Corridor

Johannesburg CBD

Park Station Precinct

Marlboro Empire Perth Development Corridor ¬ &

Turffontein Development Corridor

Alexandra Renewal Project

Louis Botha Development Corridor

Empire Perth Development Corridor

Louis Botha Development Corridor

Marlboro South

Orange Grove and Norwood

Sandton

Marlboro South

Rea Vaya BRT

Rashuma Village

! Schools FigureHealth 3: MapFacilities of Marlboro South ¬ &

Alexandra

! ! D !

Recreation Centre Police Stations

MARLBORO SOUTH

PROFILE OF MARLBORO SOUTH: SHAPED BY CONTROVERSY According to the City, five major targets are outlined for the COF project: improved liveability of the built environment, increased efficiency of urban functions, socioeconomic inclusivity and improved social cohesion, sustainable environmental change, and resilience defined by “robustness” and “adaptability” (CoJ 2015a). Each of these five targets are relevant to the economic and social challenges faced by the actors affected by poverty, inequality, and socio‑spatial marginalisation in Marlboro South. As such, this section is structured to discuss the current demographics, background and history of the area according to four phases (determined by key events that created a rupture in the status quo of the previous area), and corridor-related plans and core challenges. The research presented in this section delineates Marlboro South’s unique context, which is crucial to understanding the dynamic relationships and core challenges the COF will need to consider if the agenda is indeed to effect the targeted change.

2.1. Origins of the Urban Patchwork Contemporary Marlboro South is a mixed-use community, although it was not planned as such, and its current status as a multi-layered urban patchwork has been contested throughout its history. Attitudes towards the boundaries and identity of Marlboro South differ amongst the wide variety of area stakeholders. For example, in the Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) national census it is considered a part of Marlboro Gardens, the former Indian township along its northern border (StatsSA 2011). Marlboro Gardens stretches from Pretoria Main Road in the west, to the Jukskei River in the east (excluding the Stjwetla informal settlement along its banks). It comprises an area of 2.38 km2, with 3 492 households (10 438 residents) (Firth 2011). The current population of Marlboro South, separated out from the census district, is recorded as 8 344 residents (StatsSA 2011) contained within 0.44 km2. The built‑up area of the industrial precinct is composed of 47 structures comprising 4 670 m2 of space (ASM 2016). The gender and racial demographics of Marlboro South’s population reflect the dichotomies of grouping the highly different neighbourhoods of Marlboro Gardens and Marlboro South into one census district: 56.3% of residents are male, reflecting the high presence of single males in Marlboro South’s appropriated warehouses, while 18.29% of residents are Indian or Asian, reflecting the former status of Marlboro Gardens during the time of apartheid (Stats SA 2011). According to the commissioned survey conducted in Marlboro South, 56% of respondents were female and 44.0% were male. The dominant languages in the national statistical area of Marlboro Gardens are English

MARLBORO SOUTH

(2 361 people), isiZulu (1 739 people), Xitsonga and Sepedi (1 437 people and 1 433 people respectively) (Stats SA 2011). The commissioned survey reflects these findings, however with a significantly lower proportion of native English speakers in the Marlboro South area. The discrepancies speak to the fact that the survey was conducted exclusively in Marlboro South, rather than the broader Marlboro Gardens area. The primary first languages spoken by residents are isiZulu (20.7%), Setswana (17.4%), Sepedi (14.1%), and Xitsonga (12.0%), with slightly lower but statistically significant levels of Tshivenda (9.8%) and Sesotho (8.7%) spoken. Marlboro South is divided politically across two wards. The demographic statistics for the wards, as far as voting is concerned, vary considerably from the Stats SA dataset. Ward 108 covers the western portion of Marlboro South, incorporating portions of the area split east-west along 4th Avenue. It includes the Urban Development Zone (UDZ) delineated by the COF in Marlboro South and parts of northern Alexandra (see Figure 6). With over 14 000 voters, Ward 108 has consistently been represented by the ANC.2 Ward 109 covers a significantly larger area, stretching from Marlboro (including the Setjwela area) north through Marlboro Gardens and Kramerville across the M1 to Morningside, Wendywood and Kelvin to the border of Frankenwald (see Figure 7). In Ward 109, with 15 000 voters, the DA has been the elected representative from 1995 till 2006, and again since 2016 (Fuchs 2016). Its size and diversity make Ward 109 “a microcosm of not just Johannesburg, but the world, to a degree. There is a huge variety in terms of demographics, language, racial background, religious background and socio‑economic backgrounds” (Butler 2016).

urrent ward councillor Deborah Francisco was contacted many times for this project and was only C available for brief comments by telephone.

MARLBORO SOUTH

01 Formation in relation to the historic struggles

Home Languages

of Alexandra (1948-1986);

23%

English

17%

isiZulu

14%

Xitonga

English

14%

Sepedi

17%

isiXhosa

Tshivenda

Setswana

isiNdebele

Sesotho

Other

Afrikaans

Siswati

Sign Language

23% isiZulu

Figure 4. Home languages of Marlboro Gardens residents, according to the 2011 census (StatsSA 2011)

Yet another identity for Marlboro South has emerged, as part of the “Greater Alexandra” development driven by the City and the Gauteng Province. It is part of the development funding through the Alexandra Renewal Project (ARP), which has recently broken ground on projects funded by the Johannesburg Development Agency (JDA) and the Gauteng Department of Economic Development (GED). Finally, based on interviews conducted in July and August 2016, local actors consider Marlboro South to be an independent entity with a distinct identity. Residents note that many of them have lived in the area for more than 30 years and their struggles and triumphs have shaped the area into the mixed-use site it has become today. Business owners have mixed opinions about whether or not it should be considered a part of Alexandra, but stakeholders in the area unanimously agree that Marlboro South and Alexandra are intricately interlinked.

2.2. Formation of a Spatial Identity It impossible to discuss Marlboro South without examining its connection to Alexandra township, a historically significant and unique place in the history of Johannesburg and the Gauteng City-Region (GCR). As noted by Bonner and Nieftagodien (2008: 1) in their introduction to the history of Alexandra: [Alexandra] is special, among other reasons, because it is almost the sole surviving example of what was once a hugely influential segment of black urban society, which cultivated a distinct social ethos and imparted its own distinct flavour to the entire black urban world […] Finally, Alexandra has been an unfailing source of political controversy.

MARLBORO SOUTH

Since Johannesburg’s inception as a centre of mining and industry, Alexandra had attracted hundreds of thousands of immigrants. The relative ease with which passes to work could be secured and the rare existence of black-owned land rapidly grew Alexandra into the dense, vibrant, powder keg of a neighbourhood that exists today (Bonner and Nieftagodien 2008: 6). In fact, Bonner and Nieftagodien (2008) assert that such magnetic targets of mass immigration – combined with sustenance and subsistence struggles in the early 1940s and the fear of such struggles by the powerful minority – enabled the National Party to eventually come to power and enact the socio-spatial system of apartheid that specifically targeted Alexandra and restricted economic opportunities for its residents. Marlboro was born into the collapse of this system, founded due to the continually increasing demand for labour in Alexandra. The principle of the “buffer zone” had successfully been implemented in Wynberg and Kew. Alexandra and its buffers have continued in their mutual yet distinct history amongst the otherwise white and upper-middle class landscape of the greater Sandton centrality. As noted by Bénit-Gbaffou (2013: 27),“poverty and wealth reside side by side often in a relationship of uncertainly and unpredictability”; this phenomenon is not limited to this case study but rather is a nationwide phenomenon. The relative proximity of Marlboro and Alexandra therefore presents significant opportunities for socially just growth and development today. In order to delineate the history of Marlboro South and evaluate this case study in the context of present TOD plans, its history has been apportioned into four major periods:

02 Proliferation of residential settlements in a light industry zone (1986-2001);

03 Period characterised by urban renewal and

uncertain land tenure (2001-2012); and, finally,

04 Conceptual shift to the idea of integrated development as “Greater Alexandra” (2012-present).

2.2.1. Planning control and socio-spatial contestation: 1948-1986 Although Marlboro South was officially incorporated as a township in the mid-1960s, only a vague record of its incorporation exists and no literature or interviews yielded insight into what happened between the initial sale of stands in the 1960s and early 1980s when businesses were established. The first recorded phase of the industrially-zoned area’s growth began as apartheid was imploding in the 1980s. This phase of its history concluded with the abandonment of properties leading up to the abolishment of influx control in 1986. The first mention of Marlboro in historic records was under the spelling “Marlborough” and related to the Bantu Tenants’ Association (BTA) in Alexandra. Significantly, in November 1946, the leader of this association asked for the right to build on land adjacent to Alexandra and impose a ‘Rent Act’ to guarantee certain rights to rental tenants. Tenants were, for example, restricted from organising in any form or even holding meetings in public space and, as such, were subject to dramatic and unpredictable increases in rental payments. As Bonner and Nieftagodien (2008: 91) describe: [The BTA] leaders made their move, or ‘spilled out’, as the Department of Native Affairs liked to put it, and set up an office and headquarters on part of the neighbouring Marlborough township. Here they issued membership cards at 5 shillings each and gave out 78, 50 x 50-foot plots, together with a number plate to identify each one. This squatters-rights movement represents the first land invasion recorded in the area. Simultaneous land invasions related to the movement occurred in the areas of Lombardy East and West in 1946, where housing was erected by squatters and eventually demolished in January 1947. The group returned to Alexandra, where they established a “squatter camp” on public squares at 2nd and 3rd streets with rental

arrangements. Health conditions in the camp, and rising antagonism between stand owners and tenants, provided significant concern for public officials (Bonner and Nieftagodien 2008) as well as a portent of the movements to come several decades later.3 As land has always been a contested commodity in Alexandra, ‘spillover’ into neighbouring areas has been an integral part of the area’s historical structure. During the period of ‘high apartheid’ in the 1960s and 1970s Alexandra was characterised by the construction of hostels in (and buffer zones around) the township in order to physically isolate rapidly expanding white suburbs from Alexandra and to reassure industrial investors. This marked a turn in policy towards Alexandra, which was previously slated for relocation as it was in violation of the original Group Areas Act of 1950 (interview with Neels Letter, 17 August 2016). The industrial areas of Wynberg and Kew, which included noxious industries, were already developed at the time Marlboro (including the separate neighbourhood of Marlboro Gardens and the industrial township of Marlboro South) was delineated to the north of Alexandra by the 1966 consolidation of the Group Areas Act. This plan served the dual purpose of extracting Indian residents of Marlboro and relocating them to Marlboro Gardens and Wendywood according to their faith, as well as providing a buffer zone between the townships that could utilise Alexandra as an additional labour pool (interview with Gino, 23 July 2016). Over the course of the 1970s conditions in Alexandra began to rapidly decline as funds were diverted to “homeland bureaucracies” to maintain the apartheid socio-spatial structure (which was strained to the breaking point by rapid urbanisation and population growth). In fact, the area received so little funding by the late 1970s that “industrial firms in the surrounding areas of Kew and Wynberg deposited their waste material in the township” without consequence (Bonner and Nieftagodien 2008: 216). Although the factories and warehouses of Marlboro were an extension of this logic of control and containment, the area had a different character to that of Wynberg or Kew. While housing in Marlboro Gardens began to develop gradually under the Indian administration in the mid-1960s, according to the consolidated Group Areas Act, the plots of Marlboro South were not actually constructed until the 1980s. The structures were allegedly constructed by teams of Alexandra residents beginning in the early 1980s.4

urthermore, it was one of the key triggers utilised by the Johannesburg City Council to pressure the government F into providing financial assistance to purchase the land in Klipspruit, which eventually set the precedent for mass removals to Soweto in mid-1947. Their solution to address the ‘squatter problem’ coordinated across a regional scale and included removing particularly troublesome households such as members of the Bantu Tenants’ Association to Hammanskraal (Bonner and Nieftagodien 2008: 95). 4 From conversations with Alexandra resident and Alexandra Heritage Centre community activist Thabo Mopasi in July 2015 and August 2016. Historical records could not be procured. 3

MARLBORO SOUTH

Home Languages

to occupy warehouses advertised as “emergency housing” by owners of underutilised stands. This led to a precarious, mixed-use community in a light industrial area in violation of planning and zoning schemes, which continues to intertwine the complex histories of Marlboro South and Alexandra. So‑called residential factories and informal settlements led to conflicts with remaining businesses and protests over service delivery.

isiZulu Setswana sepedi xitsonga Tshivenda Sesotho Isixhosa

Business Owners

English

Residents

isindebele portuguese other Afrikaans Chishona

The policy of ‘orderly urbanisation’ was based on 1986 reforms replacing the influx control strategies utilised by the apartheid government as a form of population control (Gqiba 1992).7 This emphasis on orderly control over urban areas was the counterpoint to the concept of self-contained homelands, and led to a massive boom in migration to Alexandra. Gqiba (1992: 4) notes that:

Chichewa

It was essentially part of the apartheid system, though in a very shrewd way, which hoped to defuse the revolutionary anger by sharing “collective consumption” without losing political control (employing both reformist and repressive measures).

Siswati

Figure 5. Home languages of Marlboro South residents and business owners, according to the survey

Little information is available about this period of Marlboro’s history other than the original size of the stands, which was 1 000 m2, leading to their purchase by small-time investors and business developers.5 The 1980 Sandton Town Planning Scheme served as a guideline for development in this area, but no specific master plan or development plan prevailed. Noteworthy are two clauses in the scheme. Clause 12.6 states that “no person shall use any building or portion thereof, or cause or permit the use of such building for any other purpose than that for which it was erected, unless such building is altered for the proposed new use and the consent of the local authority in respect of such new use is obtained” (Sandton 1980: 18, emphasis added). Clause 20.2 notes that the local authorities retain power over “the letting, subject to the by-laws relating to the letter of room and boarding houses, by an occupant of a dwelling unit or portion thereof otherwise than as a separate dwelling” (Sandton 1980: 29). These clauses would become a key point in the future contestation over warehouses rented as ‘emergency housing’ to the large influx of people arriving from Alexandra and beyond during the final years of apartheid. As Marlboro South emerged, political contestation began to significantly destabilise the extremely dense area of Alexandra, leading up to the ‘Alex Six

MARLBORO SOUTH

2.2.2. “ Orderly urbanisation” and mushrooming residential factories: 1986-2001 As apartheid neared its end, ‘spillover’ from Alexandra reached an all-time high with an increase of residents in the industrial zone during the final years of apartheid and persisting past the 1994 governmental restructuring. The sudden decline and rapid departure of businesses from the area had a twofold consequence: first, a complicated assemblage of abandoned and underdeveloped stands remains in existence today; and second, shack dwellers from Alexandra began

espite interviews with city planners, former ward councillors and long-term business owners a reason why D development did not occur until the 1980s when the land was zoned in 1966 could not been confirmed. It is assumed that the plots were sold and then developed once the 1980 Sandton Town Planning Scheme guidelines were completed. 6 Based on interviews and casual conversations with warehouse occupants and business managers and owners in July and August 2016. 5

Days’ uprising and the State of Emergency in 1986. According to Bonner and Nieftagodien: “business owners in […] Marlboro perceived the struggles in Alexandra as a threat to their operations, while residents in the adjacent suburbs were similarly concerned that the rebellion could spill over into their area” (2008: 314). Residents and businesses in Marlboro reported high levels of violent crime in the mid- and late-1980s, which continued until the 1994 democratic elections and persists as petty crime today.6 Beyond the perceived instability of the area with regard to crime, when influx control was abolished in 1986 Alexandra continued to increase drastically in population and density through the practice of “backyarding”; it became regarded as the densest place in the country by the end of the decade (Bonner and Nieftagodien 2008).

According to the new policies, Alexandra continued to be administered separately from its surroundings. A Black Local Council had been established in 1985 to deal with township matters, but was dependent on funding from the state and was subject to the planning and infrastructure decisions of the centralised state. This led to a hodgepodge of boundary conditions, such as the dual placement of roads separating Alexandra and Marlboro divided by a concrete barrier, which originally spanned the full length of the area as Vasco de Gama Road on the Alexandra side of the municipal border and as 1st Street in Marlboro South.8 According to interviews, white industrialists originally requested a 2.5 m high wall from the Sandton Town Council, without any punctuations, to separate Marlboro and Alexandra. The request was accepted by the Council, however they compromised at an average height of one metre due to concerns about provoking the Alexandra Town Council and its constituents (interview with Neels Letter, 17 August 2016). A key difference between Wynberg, which still largely thrives as an industrial area today, and the decline of Marlboro South as an industrial area in the late

1980s, is that plots in the latter were smaller in size and sold individually to industrialists (interview with Neels Letter, 17 August 2016). Furthermore, industry in Wynberg was developed in conjunction with the financial headquarters of Sandton less than one kilometre away across the M1 highway. For example, a car dealership located in Sandton will often have its manufacturing facilities in Wynberg (interview with Andiswa Bidla, 16 August 2016). As such, much land in Marlboro South remained vacant when restrictions on influx were lifted in 1986, and quickly became occupied by ‘squatters’ in the 1980s and 1990s. The occupation of former warehouses and factories has commonly been portrayed as rapid and spontaneous; however this perception contradicts historical reports and interviews with area stakeholders. The occupation of warehouses that characterises Marlboro South today was initially carried out by two actors: land owners in the late 1980s and the South African National Civic Organisation (SANCO) in the 1990s (interviews with Alan Fuchs, 18 August 2016; Neels Letter, 17 August 2016). Landowners and industrialists were aware of the everyday conditions in Alexandra and the immense density of the area. Coupled with plummeting land values and political instability—violence was allegedly so prevalent that factory workers would refuse to enter the area—some of these individuals began to close their businesses and rent out their properties as “emergency housing”.9 According to a warehouse resident who arrived in Marlboro South in the late 1980s, new arrivals were provided with no utility services nor any guidelines for construction and were simply allowed to occupy the property.10 During this initial phase of occupation, the erection of shacks on vacant land was not yet prevalent; residential actors were generally confined to warehouses that were rented directly through a landowner or their representative. If a property was found to be vacant, sometimes a ‘representative’ suddenly emerged, and began to advertise and collect rent from residents. This led to significant contestation and even violence among the residences in the early 1990s, once an imposter was unmasked (interviews with Charles Gininda, July and August 2016). SANCO also began to take advantage of the fluctuating circumstances in early 1990s Marlboro South, directing new arrivals from rural areas into the factories and charging

his is a reference to the Identification Act of 1986 that repealed the Pass Laws and the Abolishing of the T Influx Control Act 68 of 1986. Also significant in this year was the Black Community Amendment Act 74 of 1986, which attempted to target the African population as consumers through the privatisation of the housing market (Gqiba 1994: 49). 8 Today, the streets have been renamed, but the concrete barrier remains largely intact and traffic continues to flow in the historical directions: in both directions on both sides of the barrier. 9 Based on interviews with multiple current business owners and residents of three former factories or warehouses in 2011 and 2016. 10 Interview with a resident of the former Chico’s Ice Cream Factory in October 2011, which was demolished by the City in 2012. The resident, who wishes to remain anonymous, could not be located again in 2016 for follow-up questions. 7

MARLBORO SOUTH

CITY OF JOHANNESBURG(JHB) Pong ola

Lark

32850705 2453

m Geraniu

Hollyho

ck 4th

Celos

lia

Caps

9th

Pretoria Main

o da

Gam

32850334 2229

32851065 3858

VASCO AND 9TH AVENUE

FAITH DAYCARE

32851054 2022

2nd

Philo

32850693 1334

1st

Carey

18th

32850839 2570

10th

Marlboro Ext 1

16th

Vasc

14th

Pretoria Main(M11)

3rd 4th

arty

Marlboro South

5th

3rd

Crom

TEMPORARY VOTING STATION (DIPAC FACTORY)

2nd

icum

6th

ria

85)

32850581 2615

32850716 4330

Viola

M ine( her

Lobe

Lina

Viola

Cactu

5th

Lees

Kat

spur

109

a Salvi

nia Zin

9th

Amalinda

Etosh

surrounds, is that the occupation of property began to occur as the collective exercise of urban rights. Protests and urban social movements were sweeping South Africa at this time, tying popular rhetoric of the ‘right to the city’ to demands for utility services, protection from relocation, and formal housing.12 The rise of social movements in Marlboro South was buoyed by T these experiences, creating the social and legislative structures to contest the series of evictions that would characterise the mid-2000s. T T

Marlboro

Centex

32850592 2793

WARD: 108

MDB PROPOSED WARD

Chee

tah

and hn Br

116 T

5th

108

2.2.3. Urban renewal and uncertain futures: 2001-2012

ZION APOSTOLIC CHURCH

32851144 1034 UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST

1st

a Thor

Pretoria Main(M11)

SWISS MISSION/EVANGELICAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

6th

7th

Eastern

T Hofm

Eastern

Secondary Roads

Police Stations

Streets

Voting Stations

Min : 13097 Norm : 15408

T 32851166 805

DR KNAK COMMUNITY SCHOOL

T Voters

Voting Station

32850693 32850817 32851065 32851076 32850873

METHODIST CHURCH OF SOUTH AFRICA T AME CHURCH VASCO AND 9TH AVENUE TEMPORARY VOTING STATION (JOE NHLANHLA AND 5TH AVENUE) UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST

1334 3849 3858 3594 1228

105 T

NOT TO SCALE

OVERVIEW MAP

Ward Delimitation 2009

(SPLIT VD)

Max : 17719 T

32851133 1568

13th

ne Selbor

JESCO'S PLACE

12th

Placenames

32850828 3064

14th

3rd

4th

6th

32850794 4503 32851199 911

32850862 4099 9th

eyer

4th

Main Roads

Hofm

Total Voters : 13863 National Roads

REALOGILE HIGH SCHOOL

Western

Dartfield

5th

3rd

ST MICHAEL'S CHURCH CARTER PRIMARY SCHOOL

Legend Voting Districts

ne Selbor

107

Voting District

Draft Wards 2009

eyer

32850806 3614

Chadwick

32850895 5405

AME CHURCH

ALEXANDRA HIGH SCHOOL

Chadwick

After the early 2000s Marlboro stabilised and was characterised by cyclical periods of growth and decline in population as well as economy. A major policy marking the beginning of this period of cyclical progress and instability was the Alexandra Renewal Project (ARP), launched by then President Thabo Mbeki in 2001 (Bénit-Gbaffou 2013; Bonner and Nieftagodien 2008). One of the primary goals of the T ARP was to address the over-densification of Alexandra and deliver housing to which the ‘excess’ population T could be relocated. As a result, fluctuation between evictions and mass, spontaneous appropriation of warehouses and vacant stands characterises this period in Marlboro South’s history, ending in the T more than 8 000 residents that occupy the area today (StatsSA 2011; GCRO 2016).

17th

13th

TEMPORARY VOTING STATION (JOE NHLANHLA AND 5TH AVENUE) 8th

2nd

32851076 3594

32850873 3700

11th

32850569 5209

32850873 1228

32850817 3849

15th

T METHODIST CHURCH OF SOUTH AFRICA

1511 SEPTEMBER AUGUST 2009 2009

Figure 6. Map showing Ward 108 (Municipal Demarcation Board 2009)

T T T

between R400 and R500 per month in illegal rent (News24 2005). Allegations that SANCO was behind the occupations – acting as rent collectors on behalf of property owners or of their own volition – emerged ^ in 1996, exposing profits of more than R300 000 per month (interview with Neels Letter, 17 August 2016).11

inclusion of Marlboro South residents in the Greater Alexandra Development Forum (GADF), which was T founded in 1998 by the Eastern Metropolitan Council T (Bonner and Nieftagodien 2008). The primary goal of the GADF was the removal of backyard shacks, unsafe areas,T and illegal immigrants. The GADF was strongly dominated by the ANC and had limited ability to challenge or innovate based on existing government policies (Sinwell 2010). Community leaders at the time confirmed this observation and frustration with the government’s first attempts at the ‘inclusion’ of residents in planning discussions. The sentiments of Charles Gininda, the Marlboro South leader of the Marlboro Warehouse Crisis Committee (MWCC) were echoed by Alexandra community leader Thabo Mopasi, who explained that chairing the GADF with a high-ranking member of the Gauteng provincial legislature “makes it difficult for the community to overtly withdraw support from the GADF as it could be seen to be boycotting its own government” (BénitGbaffou 2013: 29).

The convenient location of Marlboro South to opportunities in Sandton (in walking distance) or in the CBD and beyond (using a well-networked minibus taxi system) led to the continued proliferation of new arrivals in the area. However, conditions of poverty prevailed, as noted by Bonner and Nieftagodien (2008: 39):

Few people who lived in or migrated to Alexandra succeeded in being absorbed into the formal ^ economy, despite the township’s proximity to the industrial areas of Marlboro and Wynberg, and the financial capital of the country, Sandton. Therefore ‘emergency housing’ remained a popular form of housing for newcomers as well as the ‘excess’ population from Alexandra. The issue began to surface in conversations of the City Council, leading to the

The mandate of the ARP was developed as a joint initiative of national, provincial, and local government, with partnerships in the private sectors as well as CBOs. R1.3 billion in funding was allocated to the project in the initial phase of seven years (CoJ 2007). The project area included ‘Old Alex’, the East Bank, the Far East Bank, Wynberg, Kew, and the Marlboro precincts. The Local Integrated Development Plan (LIDP) for what was then Region 7 stated that in 2002 Alexandra was in a state of emergency and Marlboro was characterised by an “exodus of industry and proliferation of residential decay” (Roefs et al 2003: 13). The Urban Development Framework (UDF), in conjunction with the ARP mandate, specifically targeted Marlboro South to redevelop some of the warehouses for housing purposes as a pilot LIDP for integrated development. However, as noted by the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), these local plans significantly deviated from the outlined goals of the ARP, specifically those focused on social development and the organisation of service delivery (Roefs et al 2003).

What is significant about this event, which marked a turning point in the history of Alexandra and its #

The ARP became particularly contentious in Marlboro

South, as property owners and City officials gained a renewed interest in dealing with the residential factories and shack settlements. The living standards in these buildings were precarious; standards were far removed from any form of building codes; and a series of daytime fires led to multiple deaths and the T Letter, destruction of residences (interview with Neels 17 August 2016). In May 2004 the ARP was given a court order against 40 erven (including 16 property owners and 23 buildings) to evict the tenants. The Sheriff served the court orders with police backup. However, the evictions did not go ahead as a moratorium was placed on the order by then Mayor Amos Masondo (interview with Neels Letter, 17 August 2016).13 As a result, the ARP became the target of considerable anger by local residents, souring the potential for collaboration for many years to follow. One of primary challenges in addressing the residents of the warehouses was the tension between ‘old Alex’ and ‘new Marlboro’.

Residential factories in Marlboro South Reports on the population size and number of warehouses occupied have varied considerably over time. While residents are often described as newcomers or outsiders, 30% of survey respondents were born in Marlboro South and 66% are originally from Johannesburg or elsewhere in the Gauteng Province. Many have resided in the area, some even in the same dwelling, since the late 1980s or early 1990s. In 2005 there were 16 occupied warehouses, according to newspaper reports of evictions, with some residents reporting having lived on the property for more than 15 years (News24 2005). This conflicts with the 23 warehouses against which the 2004 court order was directed, and contemporary estimates, which are as high as 47 occupied structures. T

As former ARP spokesperson and Ward 109 councillor Alan Fuchs noted: “The reality is that from 2006 on we kept on discussing Marlboro South in Council and took a pusillanimous approach, because by law youT have to provide alternative accommodation and they didn’t have it” (interview with Alan Fuchs, 18 August 2016). He expressed disappointment with this situation, considering the great potential of the area based on its mixed constituency and well‑located land, and that no action was taken during his over 15 years in office. During

See, for example, Hart’s (2014) analysis of movements in KwaZulu-Natal (which includes one of the T most successful people’s housing movements, Abahlali baseMjondolo). 13 Interview with Neels Letter in August 2016 on his role as acting director of the ARP during the period of attempted evictions.

MARLBORO SOUTH

s a result the ANC was forced to take action against their Tripartite Alliance partner, which A destabilised the alliance in post-apartheid South Africa. T

MARLBORO SOUTH

CITY OF JOHANNESBURG(JHB)

Wendy

Alison Bu cc

leu ch

11 ) in(M Ma ria

in Pr eto

Pa rkv ille

Mu ller

Waterval Waterval

Tw a

Heide

M11) Easte rn(

Oldens way

Ad ria

1st 2nd

co n Be a

Hilton

k( ) t Ban Eas

Clulee

Far

Oldens wa

11) n(M Mai oria Pret

Viola

Carey

Western

Starfield

Westw ay

Weste rn

Glanville Daphny

Desmond

Silvela Etosha

6th

4th

Lin den

n Hele

nds

Kings

Miall

1st

Ester

Dais y

owb roo k

en Carm

Andries

# #

T T

Ward Delimitation 2009

(SPLIT VD)

# #

2.2.4. A shift in scales and transformative strategies: 2012-present

# #

his tenure Fuchs did attempt to utilise the potential of this diverse ward and mobilise his constituents to interact, but found that “at the time, the average person still had the perception that you go in there and you never come out again”, describing the project as an unfortunate failure. He also noted the challenges of working across multiple levels of government in the T greater Alexandra area. For example, within the ARP planning occurred at the provincial level and the City was responsible for the implementation of these plans. T While spatial development frameworks (SDFs) outlined T principles promoting social and economic development, the primary emphasis in the area remained consistently T on the production of housing, to the frustration of many residents (interview with Alan Fuchs, 18 August 2016). ^

its growth potential around the Gautrain Station. According T to architect and urbanT planner Monica Albonico: T #

# #

T # #

A tall order for any framework, the plans resulting from this UDF were never made more concrete due T to upcoming elections and the lack of a legitimate participation process.

# # #

In the late 2000s a trend towards accepting the mixeduse nature of Marlboro emerged. In 2006 there was T T another restructuring of administrative space across the GCR, with Alexandra and Marlboro incorporated into T the redistricted Region E, together with Wynberg and Sandton.14 Two years later a new UDF was introduced by T T the City to guide interventions in the Alexandra area (CoJ T T 2008), specifically targeting ^the greater Marlboro area for T #

T T T

The contentious period from 2001 to 2012 culminated with two major events: a final attempt at a highly contested eviction at the Chico’s Ice Cream residential factory, and a court case against the City filed by the now-defunct Marlboro Industrial Business Association

T T

MARLBORO SOUTH T

T T

oteworthy is that this N merging of Sandton and Alexandra as an administrative area had been T suggested by the liberal-leaning Sandton Town Council in 1984, as a response to government’s traditional stance that residents of Alexandra should be removed and the location remanded to a white T group area. See Bonner and Nieftagodien (2008: 242, 314). #

# #

T T

T was a negligence suit brought by the MIBA against the City in 2012. However this case he latter court case T never came to fruition and the association persists only in the form of a non-active website. T T 16 In terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998, also known as the PIE Act. See Marlboro Crisis Committee and Others v City of Johannesburg ZAGPJHC 187 (7 September 2012). T T 17 According to presentation material distributed to key officials in the City’s Department of City ^ Transformation, Johannesburg Property Company (JPC), ARP and private sector urban planners in January 2016. The Alex City Development is presented in significantly less detail on the Gauteng Infrastructure Financing Agency (GIFA) website: http://gifa.co.za/services-view/alex-city-development. T

T T # ^

The Alex City plan is based on the groundwork laid by ASM’s master plan and ranges from risk funding to technical studies, a master plan and development of mixed-use projects and infrastructure implementation.The Alex City group’s intention

In Marlboro South development initiatives have begun in earnest over the past several years. Since 2012 three major projects have broken ground within the bounds of Marlboro South: the Thokoza Clinic reconstruction, T T financed and executed by the ARP as a branch of the JDA; the Greater Alexandra Automotive Hub (GAAH), #

The current phase of Marlboro South’s history is T characterised by increased interest development ^in T originating from both the public and, very recently, the private sector. The trend is to think of Alexandra no longer in isolation but as an integral part of the surrounding context possessing great potential for development. According to Albonico: “Whatever we’re trying to get for the rest of the T T city should be the expectation for this area too” (interview with Monica Albonico, 18 August 2016). This is especially so for Marlboro South, as the underdeveloped land stretching T to the north and east of Alexandra presents a tremendous opportunity to increase socio-spatial justice, transit and economic development across these precincts. #

If the proposals areT turned into reality, a whole new node will develop around the Marlboro Station area […] presenting a^ wonderful opportunity for development of [a] whole new social and economic hub, bringing opportunities closer to people who are in need of T T socio‑economic growth. Further this development will create an urban environment that not only fulfills legislative and policy directives, but T actually contributes to making Johannesburg a ‘City that Works’ (interview, 18 August 2016). #

Beyond direct involvement by the state, interest in the area from the private sector has begun to emerge. The Alex City Development plan for Marlboro South, Marlboro Gardens Extension 1 and portions of Zandfontein farm has been proposed by five entities – Inkanyeli, Kitso, International Housing Solutions, Bombela, and the University of ^ the Witwatersrand – and the proposed public-private partnership has a budget of R4.4 billion.17 The developers came upon the idea “because the conditions were so poor in the area” and because it tied into Gauteng Premier David Makhura’s 2015 announcement that “mega human settlements represent a decisive departure from the T uncoordinated, small scale, low impact, and sporadic as well as unsustainable housing developments” and noted that the goal of new settlements must be to achieve diversity, including dense and mixed-income urban areas that emphasise “social and economic inclusion as well as promoting spatial justice” (interview with Themba Xakaza, August 2016; Le Cordeur 2015). #

^ Figure 7. Map showing Ward 109 (Municipal Demarcation Board 2009)

1511 SEPTEMBER AUGUST 2009 2009

NOT TO SCALE

Clifford

T T

Gordon

OVERVIEW MAP T T

2793 4189 2453 4330 1342

32851043 1683 1

5th

ia(M

ertre e

Grange

Stuart Denise

Michelle nd

Bu rge nla

gon Wag 9)

don

Lon g

hus

Pep p

Wes t( )

3rd

South Africa

In 2012 Albonico Sack Metacity Architects and Urban Designers (ASM) were approached by the ARP to create a new master plan for Marlboro South. Marking a further change in policy, ASM intended to reverse T the longstanding trend of community participation as a rubber stamp, engaging with the community on the truncated processes of the original UDF four years previously and listening to their concerns that “this thing would just be another one of those” (interview with Monica Albonico, 18 August 2016). This approach also marks a change in policy towards the conception of an integrated and networked “greater Alexandra” in urban T planning and development. #

32851032 3099 2nd

Fre dm

Will

64) e(M mor Ben

eth

Mo rta r Wo odla

Wande

Woodland

Ar um

Crassula

De la Rey

Matlabas

Ro nm

ste r

ies

rain e

Co le

e lies

Riv on

Po p

Da v

Bacc

i ske Juk

Po rch e en Gre

Quorn lar

mo re Sy ca

Klip

Ann e

Middl

ge brid Ca m

The Riv er Bro ok

ire on sh

rn e

De v

es tbo u W

River The

Tu ge

Eli zab

ana Gh

) y( frica th A bard Sou Lom

s ritiu

He le

3rd

Mau

ich

Kenya

No rw

Eastern

Park

Lilia n

3rd

T T

32851122 1117

KINGS SCHOOL NE SUBURBS/DUDUZA COLLEGE

li Ma

Oak

a fric

ve Do

Voters

arr Sp

19th

15th

20th

12th

13th

Tsutsumani

East Bank

32850884 1733

Reid

3rd

roon

32851133 1568 #

eyer

116

ne Selbor

Nig eria

19th

13th

8th

6th

107

Came

Modderfontein AH

Kenya

A All

Vic tori a

Ma rie

Hofm

ria Alge

105

ALTREK CENTRE

14th

9th

10th

32851201 1995

32850334 2229

17th

ERNEST ULLMAN RECREATION CENTRE WENDYWOOD HIGH SCHOOL T T MARLBORO GARDENS SECONDARY SCHOOL # TEMPORARY VOTING STATION (DIPAC FACTORY) TEMPORARY VOTING STATION (SESWETLA CLINIC)

Lion

18th

11th

and hn Br

T T T

Namibia

East Ba

16th

5th

32850930 673

32850424 1342

le Eag

T 32851278 1967

32850839 2570 32850895 # 5405

6th

32850716 4330

4th 3rd # d 2n

2nd

bad ma

ley Pars Basil G ilia

Milky Way

Galax

nia

Sunflowe

Marlboro Gardens

)

32900105 1689

ena let Vio Verb ca Vin

)

32851065 3858

108

m Ha

bin

Jumna

Isla

Lilia n

ssa

y wa

oro

7th

Go rdo n

h Jo

Spa

e Van

ing Stirl

aret

Nola

Marg

yl Arg

ise

14th

rlb

Proton

3rd

ent sid Pre

u Lo

illo w

a rnw Bu

stw Ea

4th

5th

Frankenwald

y wa

wa ny

financed by the JDA; and the Industrial Hub, financed at ^ the provincial level by the GDED. In 2014 the two plots of land along Old Pretoria Road in westernmost Marlboro T were Tearmarked for the development of a BRT bus station T and were selected by the Johannesburg Social Housing Company (JOSHCO) as potential sites Tfor affordable housing development. This is aligned with the master plan for the area developed by ASM, which ranges from a transit-oriented node in the west intersecting with Old T Pretoria Road; social development initiatives along 2nd Street and 4th Avenue as an anchor for the centre of the site; industry clustered to the east of Marlboro South; and commercial and integrated design on City-owned T land adjacent to the Marlboro Gautrain Station. Albonico comments that “each area requires a different strategy and different stakeholders”, explaining that the strategy must also beT implemented incrementally to enrich the T existing identity of the precinct. Moreover, skills and employment should be the focus of development, not housing, according to the following goals: first,^permeate T and connect with people to learn about their needs and concerns; second, aim to transform from within rather than impose from outside; and third, promote economic activation through sustained interventions (interview T with Monica TAlbonico, 18 August 2016). #

n Su

W dwa

32850705 2453

32850817 2022 3849

32850693 1334

32910038 2700

ic Cosm

TEMPORARY VOTING STATION (SESWETLA CLINIC)

Voting Station

rth No

old

ALEXANDRA HIGH SCHOOL

Max : 17719

Streets

Norm : 15408

rlb

Lilium

Secondary Roads

thw

Placenames

Min : 13097

ria

2nd

Main Roads

n Co

Kelvin

5th

National Roads

Voting Districts #

Lina

3rd

Draft Wards 2009

4th

32850592 32850671 32850705 # 32850716 32850424

Total Voters : 15107

Marlboro

110

32900240 3150

ni Gemi

u So

32851076 3594 a 32850569 Thor 5209

Chadwick

Marig

1st

n Den

32850558 5823

yn Ste

icia Patr

15th

2nd

Marlboro Ext 1

Atholl Ext 12

MARLBORO GARDENS SECONDARY SCHOOL T Zinnia 32851054

9th

Lees

85)

SANDTON FIRE STATION

South

M ine( her

Delp

15th

Viola

Miriam Kat

t Alber

40)

e Westbrook

Gayre Ann

Centex

Amalinda

le Da

Sandown Ext

pia lym

rta Spa

on(M

Kramerville

Melrose

Merle

Harris

yst

Kram

Charles

Janine

Gale

Gra

Voting Stations

Appel

Dion

rg be

e ma

ee Eil

Sparta

1 North

Me ad

Impala

Bessemer

Dartfield

ond

nny rend Su B

Mea

Edison

Antho

ger

Neutr

y wa

Cavendish

Saldanha 32850592

ot Asc

Stella

)

Police Stations

Ipan

Ly n

Darwin

ir Fa

ym Ra

Wendy

Algoa 2793 Donkin St.Francis St.Sebastian

n so

32850424 2000

s Ro

Herold

Eastleigh

109

Wendywood

Qu ee

Voting District

Legend

Morris

32850581 2615

Roosevelt Churchill

Luderitz

llen Ste

ce Ali

5th

2nd

W es t( M

Mau

Strathavon

Sandown

Haldane

Roosevelt

) h( ut () So uth So

a Nerin

North

Bute

Dahlia

Raalte

Aloe

Acacia

Cullin an TEMPORARY VOTING STATION (RIVERS OF JOY CHURCH) l T nne ar nee Adrie pest To Tam Tem 74) h(M Sout Aston Gerhard benstein Ru rd Edwa id v a D Adolf

ion

dil ffo n Da tio rna Ca

Mellor

Joyce

5th

ark

Centre

Pear

32850604 2081

Gib

Gibson

n Lebano

Greenw ay

Umgazi

w La

Commerce

Mar

l Vaa

ton

32850727 4136

Voya

Buffalo ivier Mooir

to Masiton a Umtat

am Keisk

ond

Centre

Kei

Colin

Murray

Gibson

Mu ller

leberry

Elizabeth

Ellana

ge Wil

iff Ratcl

Elza

CEDAR PARK HOTEL

WENDYWOOD HIGH SCHOOL

Elands

)

Jud y

Judy

Huntingdon

6th 5th

ie Sab

M85

East

32850615 3962

Jukskei

ling(

Brend

Bow

Kelvin

ERNEST ULLMAN RECREATION CENTRE

)

32850547 3187

8th

Pam

Lotus

4189

Lynton

Gary

Rid ge

Brian

Harris

en Gw

11th

Komati

berr

rich

Western

nje

The Woodlands

Gallo Manor

Molopo

Side

no Ma

10th

Low

()

ill Sav

Huck

Sow He in

Fife

stle Pe tara Sa

Ora

mo lvin Ke

Waterval

n ni

e Tug

s Co

Des m

Western

ge Um

Woodmead(R55)

n Lincol

n He

ib Taa

Gail

ard Gill

Shor t

Stan

7th

1st

Letaba

dle

13 th

Gardens

2nd

Shangani

Mid

alk

Parkmore

Sa 4th nd ton (M

Sch o

ntin

st We

Benmore Sh rub # lan ds Ha wth orn

l Hil

Ro s 12th

9th

vy Musco

Que

Berr il

32850659 4313

)

14th 13th

Hurlpark

15 th

Notwani

Valle

Usutu

Murra

Morningside

School

Kop je

a Le

Franz Koe ing

32850682 1833

Gill

Billern

Watchill

kie Vic

tan

Pillemer

hoc Holly

nm Be

an tsp Ou

La n

Addo

dle

Berril

) 64

Sunset Acres

ille Granv

Olive

Fir

an tsp

ir Sp

an Outsp

t yan

bo Flam

Prunu

ss Ca

gh ill

le Aza

Sp rin

Leon

Alon

Morningside Ext 40

Dorryce

Mid

Abelia

# enia Gard litzia Stre elia Cam

urs

gh ill

Rhine

rum Cest

32850648 3134

Colin

hin

n dbur

dbu

u Ba

Morningside Manor32850671

Woo

Acacia

74)

David erhaze

Disa Pro te

way

Woo

n Kelvi

a Marikan Kiepersol

Summ

Pine

it(M

Gilford

Clarise

mm Su

n Mervy

Larry

Ma rico

103

Sp rin

Vin ce

-Ann Carol an Megg

1st en Colle

pto

8th

nch Fre

Gle

O'Leary

ntein

ill

Duxberry

fo Zand

h Red

wda le

Sanda

Suring

Canterbury

Brakrivier

Cozy

ECOLE JULES VERNE FR SCHOOL

32850626 2718

Va n

Springbok

4th

toft

Vaa l

Lang

Tan ja

Ha m

Satar

5th 4th

3rd

North

o enb Ste

River Club

ks Lin

ldy

Jaq m

Kinkel

6th

5th

The Cresce nt The Link

West

Umge

)

Khyb

Tangle

8th

106

7th

Montagu 74

erfe Ab

rd st Hertfo

Boe kenh out

32850749 5436

Elm

Borro Sa nd

32850750 3931

gh Northlei The Cu rve

Ballyclare(M64)

n(M

nda ara Jac

d Ce

an sto

k Oa

Bry

9th

Stiglingh

Belgrav

tR ive r

Edenburg

Rivonia

Ea s

Farm

Trebyam

Bevan

s re

Po n

9th

(MIBA).15 In May 2012 residents of Chico’s were evicted early in the morning – withTtheir building and the majority of their possessions demolished – and left without any alternative accommodation. The MWCC – the primary residents’ association in Marlboro South representing approximately 5 000 residents – with assistance from the Community Organisation Resource Centre (CORC) and Shack/Slum Dwellers International (SDI) successfully sued the City and was granted permission to erect temporary shelter for the ousted residents, as well as permission to remain on site until alternative accommodation was provided “within a reasonable distance” (interview with Jhono Bennett, 24 August 2016).

Wessel

Ha n

Ea st

Rietfontein

y St.Audle

ow Landsd

p Cy

Henry

MDB PROPOSED WARD

T Driefontein

Po n Bak e

St.Jam

WARD: 109

T #

MARLBORO SOUTH

16 #

is to create “complete and sustainable housing solutions supported by much needed amenities in a form of relation, industrial, public open spaces, social amenities etc.” (Alex City 2016). However, the Alex City implementation strategy does not mention consultation with key area stakeholders in the development process, nor does it explain the intention to focus primarily on housing in Marlboro. As one developer associated with the project commented:

No one asked for specifics at the time, just grand visions for the areas that could be developed across Gauteng. But the laws in place are the very ones that became a problem. We are very aware of the Corridors of Freedom but there is no one office or person dealing with it. We have been waiting for ten months to secure a meeting with the [Johannesburg] City Council (telephone interview with Themba Xakaza, 23 August 2016). He noted the potential of transit-orientated development (TOD) to link the greater Alexandra area with Modderfontein and surrounding developable land, and to introduce mixeduse functions in Marlboro. However, the Alex City proposal includes 30 800 units of housing, including 18 480 RDP houses, 3 080 social housing units, 3 080 affordable rental stock options, 3 080 sectional title units, and 3 080 finance-linked subsidy (FLISP) and bonded houses. As such, 75% of the total space is dedicated to residential, 19% to commercial, 7% to “retail, deco and auto centre,” and 5% to industrial activities (Alex City 2016). In order to execute the plan, significant rezoning, as well as a serious evaluation of the approximately 300 land parcels that remain in private ownership, would be required. The proposed architectural design also requires further development, as the current repetition of the same units across every block of Marlboro South lacks regard for the existing identity, character, and history of the precinct. What the plan does successfully capture is the sentiment by planning and development experts that Alexandra must be conceived of as an intrinsic part of the greater area, not as a “box” or a “problem child” in the urban fabric, but rather as “resilient and resourceful”; therefore including identifiable centralities and considering mobility in the design (interview with Monica Albonico, 18 August 2016)

2.3. Recommendations To achieve the five targets of the COF plan, incremental and inclusive strategies grounded in the specific needs of everyday stakeholders in Marlboro South are required. The residents can enjoy significant benefits from the effective and efficient new forms of transportation, as well as economic and social development initiatives, but they

MARLBORO SOUTH

Contested development: the Greater Alexandra Automotive Hub The Greater Alexandra Automotive Hub (GAAH) has been contested by area residents and met with scepticism by business owners. This has partly arisen from the public participation process. The normal process is for a private consultant to rely on the regional urban management offices to organise meetings with stakeholders in the area; these community meetings are planned by the ward councillor. This means that the ward councillor is responsible for bringing together all relevant community stakeholders and ensuring equitable representation. In Marlboro South there is a disconnect between the community participation process employed and the stakeholders included. With regard to the GAAH, the MWCC was not invited to participate and, according to their spokesperson, they reluctantly tried to engage in the process of the GAAH because they thought area residents would be angry if they stopped potential jobs. Their initial response was to ‘revolt’ against the project and stop construction because they were not consulted in the process. The local ANC Youth League leader was slightly more positive about the development, having been included in the public participation process. As he explained: “We appreciate and acknowledge any investment” in the area. However, he noted that there is still much to be done to create a better future, particularly for the youth. must also be protected from potentially increasing land values around the TOD corridors that will inevitably result if they do create dense, mixed-use development. The role of the state in ensuring that these targets are reached and residents are protected is to align their development goals – and the goals of private developments they have the power to approve or deny – with the priorities of each specific area of impact; in particular the areas that house vulnerable populations. Beyond an understanding of Marlboro South’s unique and contentious history, this requires thorough analysis of the specific socio-economic conditions in the area, which will need to be addressed when considering future COF development. These conditions are discussed in the following two sections of this report.

MARLBORO SOUTH

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS: A MIXED-USE ZONE Government initiatives to encourage growth along corridors of infrastructure, such as lines of transportation, are intended to infuse areas with a higher density and connect peripheral areas to the rest of the city (Harrison et al 2008). This shift in policy led to directional plans such as the Growth Management Strategy (GMS) and the Spatial Development Framework (SDF), which form the basis of the current COF project. However according to Todes (2012) even though proposals by developers are now evaluated according to these strategic frameworks, the real estate market is still the primary driving force behind growth. As such, an economic case for the Corridors is by no means a given; it requires alignment with governance and government institutions to implement TOD that promotes dense corridor development, particularly when economically and socially equitable growth is desired and areas of marginalisation, such as Marlboro South, will be directly impacted by development. In order to unpack the socio-economic conditions in Marlboro South, 150 residents were surveyed together with 100 businesses and 50 additional site users – a total of 300 respondents. Compared to the other three area studies (Westbury, Park Station and Orange Grove) along the corridors, the survey group encountered significant difficulties in Marlboro South such that no focus groups were conducted. The survey team at Outsourced Insight concluded that “security concerns and a lack of knowledge of the [Corridors of Freedom] project made it hard for the researchers to gain the trust of participants. This reluctance to participate or to open their business to strangers reflects the general sense of insecurity and high crime rate in the area.”

3.1. Perceptions of Constancy and Change in Marlboro South The nature of Marlboro South as a mixed-use site has led to the constancy of many long-term light industrial tenants, as well as the proliferation of informal businesses to serve residents. Notable in interviews with business managers and owners is that their level of optimism about the future is correlated to the length of time they have been personally present in the area.18 As one might expect, managers and owners present since the 1980s construction period are more likely to report that conditions have remained the same or improved over time, having first-hand experience of the collapse of apartheid in the 1980s and early 1990s. As one manager noted: “You should have seen it in the ‘80s. Our boss’s son was shot right here in front of

[Springbok Scaffolding]” (interview with Mark Delborg, 23 July 2016). They cited the increased trustworthiness of the police and improved response times to reported crimes as a positive change, as well as the presence of private security companies like ADT and Scorpion, as improving conditions in the area. They also noted that utility service companies such as Eskom, who in previous years refused to enter Marlboro South at all, have been at least moderately responsive to their requests for new systems and technologies to prevent electricity theft. In contrast, those present since the mid-2000s reported uncertainty and frustration with the lack of progress that has been achieved in addressing the difficulties that arise for businesses, which they primarily cite as petty theft and service delivery issues.19 Two out of four businesses interviewed are currently considering leaving the area and relocating elsewhere due to the uncertain future of the area, which they consider as stalled at the interstice between development and decline.20 Businesses in the area have evolved to address the needs of both the industrial factories and the increasing number of residents. Some of the most prevalent businesses related to light industry are food production factories, recycling plants, auto mechanics, panel beaters, construction material providers, and engineering firms which support industrial production. Businesses serving residents include spaza shops, a post office, small-scale supermarkets, churches and crèches. Businesses also rely on others in the area for supplies to a large extent, while others source their supplies in the CBD (see Figure 10).

ased on qualitative interviews conducted in July and August 2016. Springbok Scaffolding (present in B the area for 18 years), Gino’s II (present for 35 years) and the ARP (present for around 15 years) reported constancy tending towards optimism. 19 Based on qualitative interviews conducted in July and August 2016. MegaCandy (present in the area for 8 years), a spaza shop owner (present for 6 months) and a former ARP spokesperson (left area in 2014) reported a perpetual decline in conditions and concern for the future viability of the area. 20 Gino’s II and MegaCandy are currently considering relocation. A slight contradiction is present with one of the business owners: while the owner of Gino’s II expressed optimism for the long-term future of the area, he is nevertheless considering shutting his business and focusing on branches in other locations. 18

Figure 8. Streetscape emphasizing the contrast of formal and informal businesses (Mark Lewis 2016)

MARLBORO SOUTH

City of Tshwane Marlboro South

Marlboro South

Louis Botha Development Corridor

Location of Suppliers Louis Botha Development Corridor

Alexandra Renewal Project

Open Spaces

Marlboro Gardens

Open Spaces

Highways

Alexandra/ Arterial Roads

Main Roads

Marlboro

Main Roads

Local Roads

Rea Vaya BRT

Rashuma Village

Services Motor

City of Tshwane

Louis Botha Development Alexandra Corridor Alexandra Renewal Project Open Spaces Highways Arterial Roads

Types of businesses

Louis Botha Development Corridor Alexandra Renewal Project Open Spaces Highways Arterial Roads Main Roads Local Roads

lexandra

Rea Vaya BRT

Types of businesses Figure 9. Map of business types in Marlboro South

Retail

Rea Vaya BRT

City of Tshwane Rashuma Village

Marlboro South

0.45 Roads 0.6 Local

Retail Catering Services Motor

0 0.075 0.15

North of CBD

Elsewhere in Gauteng

South of CBD

Figure 10. Location of suppliers to Marlboro South businesses

3.1.1. Existing businesses and micro-enterprises

Marlboro South

0.3

CBD

Catering

Motor

0 0.075 0.15

36%

Retail

Services

Coordinate System: GCS Hartebeesthoek 1994 Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Date: 2017/05/19 Units: Degree

Alexandra/Wynberg/Marlboro

CBD

Catering

Main Roads

36%

46%

Types of businesses

Retail

Wynberg/ Marlboro

Rea Vaya BRT

Types of businesses

Alexandra

46%

Highways

Arterial Roads

0.3

0.45

0.6 Km

There are a number of businesses and microenterprises in Marlboro South, which are discussed below by type.21

businesses under the same name. Although only 12.7% of businesses surveyed were involved in the auto industry, this is likely too low when including activities such as panel beating, auto mechanics and scrapyards.

Food production

Recycling

Manufacturing food and beverage products is one of the oldest industries in Marlboro South. Factories that remain in production today include the SAFA juice factory, the MegaCandy factory, Marlboro Meat Packers, Jabulani Whole Chicken Resellers, as well as many smaller-scale businesses that produce or package consumable goods. The sale of products from these manufacturers also occurs in the area, for example at Gino’s II Supermarket and Leila Bottle Shop. These products also filter down to micro-enterprises, for example as resale items for spaza shops. Auto repair workshops and panel beaters

Although few residents of Marlboro South own a vehicle themselves, there are more motor-related industries in the area than any other type of business. These are often located in spaces such as old garage or factory buildings, or in the backyard of an existing plot of land. Old taxis, small trucks and minibuses comprise the vehicle types that are typically repaired in these workshops. The role as a machinery depot for recycling parts is also a common undertaking in this specialised sector. Many small businesses, including panel beaters and plumbers, abandoned by their original owners in the 1980s were then appropriated by residents in the area, who continued to operate the

A significant number of businesses located in Marlboro South are part of the recycling industry. Large companies, such as South African Waste, have recycling plants located next to micro-businesses that sell used products and building materials. SA Waste is related to both informal trash pickers as well as employees of Pikitup, initiated by the City’s Jozi@Work programme. Since the inception of Pikitup, the recycling industry in Marlboro South has become more concentrated. Vacant lots are used by Pikitup employees to sort the materials, which are collected from around the city in trucks and loaded back onto the trucks after sorting to be taken to the recycling facilities in the area. These recyclers have been contracted with Pikitup; however there are also a significant number of independent recyclers in Marlboro South who bring their goods directly to, and receive payment directly from, these recycling centres. Spaza and tuckshops

Micro-businesses have been initiated by residents in the area, commonly located on the chamfered corners of the blocks where their owners reside. Some spaza shops function as informal convenience stores, selling everything from food to common household products, while others focus solely on non-perishable food.

Catering

Services MARLBORO SOUTH Motor

Special thanks to Vanessa Joos, with whom these particularities were originally investigated.

MARLBORO SOUTH

Marlboro Marlboro Gardens Gardens Marlboro Marlboro

Rashuma Rashuma Village Village

Reas R locat lo

City of Tshwane Highway Figure 11. Typical configuration of a tuckshop and residence (Mark Lewis 2016)

Expanding empires Louis Seeco co-founded the Neh! Nightclub in 2009, and it is currently a hotspot for highranking members of the ANC. Having grown up in Alexandra during apartheid, the idea behind his business was to create opportunities for the youth of Alexandra to work in the club, use the job to finance their education, and someday return as patrons. However, he had difficulties hiring this target group because “real locals find it demeaning to work in a restaurant.” He purchased the building on a private auction, began with a shebeen and eventually created a three-story node for entertainment targeting a well-heeled clientele. According to Seeco: “Marlboro doesn’t exist without Alex”, confirming this historical perspective. He is one of the few people interviewed to consider Marlboro South an extension of Alex without its own formative identity. Perhaps controversially, he would like to see Marlboro the City create a programme whereby property owners without a “real connection to Alexandra” would be subject to auctions of their land to unlock the enormous development potential of the area, currently stifled by inaction.

Arterial Roads

There are several food production companies and supermarkets in Marlboro South, but most of the inhabitants rely on spaza shops for their daily shopping and travel to the Pan Africa Mall for larger shopping Marlboro Gardens trips. Tuckshops are often adjacent to their owner’s residence in a warehouse or shack, and provide hot meals Marlboro (see Figure 11). Chicken and chips are typical foods sold in Marlboro South.

Rea Vaya BRT Alexandra Alexandra Arterial Roads

Main Roads Local Roads Open Spaces Marlboro South Louis Botha Development Corridor

Churches

Whether practiced in a traditional way or in westernstyle churches, the majority of Marlboro South residents express some religious affiliation and attend a regular church service. Besides the Protestant and Catholic churches, a remarkable number of so-called ‘free’ or charismatic churches can be also found in Marlboro South. Not all of them are practicing churches; some are aid-oriented businesses and others provide services such as childcare and primary education. Religious organisations are one of the few investors in the area of Marlboro Gardens Marlboro South.

Rashuma Village

City of Tshwane

Alexandra Renewal Project0

Coordinate Coordinate System:System: GCS Hartebeesthoek GCS Hartebeesthoek 1994 1994 Datum: Datum: Hartebeesthoek Hartebeesthoek 1994 1994 Date: 2017/06/12 Date: 2017/06/12 Units: Degree Units: Degree

Reason for businesses locating in the area

Highway Arterial Roads

Alexandra Rashuma Village

0.075 0 0.075 0.15 0.15 0.3 0.3 0.45 0.45 0.6 0.6 Km Km

Rea Vaya BRT

Lack of competition

Arterial Roads

Owner lives in the area

Main Roads

Busy area/well-located

Local Roads

No rent/cheap rent

Open Spaces

Only appropriate/available premises

Marlboro South

Similar businesses in the area

Louis Botha Development Corridor

Other

Alexandra Renewal Project

Reason for businesses Figure 12. in Mapthe illustrating locating area the reasons survey respondents chose to locate their business in Marlboro South Lack of competition

MARLBORO SOUTH

Coordinate System: GCS Hartebeesthoek 1994 Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Date: 2017/06/12 Units: Degree

Owner lives in the area

0 0.075 0.15

0.3

0.45

Busy area/well-located

0.6 Km

MARLBORO SOUTH

years, as trucks that pick up scrap metal began dumping heavily in Marlboro South. However, the City very recently intervened in this issue after years of complaints by multiple businesses, setting up a hotline to call if dumping was witnessed. However dumping still continues in cycles despite these initiatives. Although residents also have several designated dumping sites, they wish dumping were not so prevalent in the area (interviews with Charles Gininda, July and August 2016; Richard Khumalo, 12 August 2016). Mark Delborg suggested harsher penalties

for those caught dumping to instead create a social benefit: “Take their truck away and give it to a school!” This reflects the findings of the quantitative survey: 16.3% of residents cited poor services as their primary concern for the area, and 9.8% mentioned pollution as the area’s greatest challenge. However, Delborg did state that Pikitup and the Jozi@Work programme “are doing an excellent job improving conditions in the area” and there has been a considerable reduction in rats (interview with Mark Delborg, 23 July 2016).

Figure 13. Contrast of informal businesses and residential factories (Mark Lewis 2016)

Residential sites have gradually encroached into the industrial zone over time, with a notable increase in sites north of 2nd Street over the past several years: “Four years ago most of the residents were south of 2nd Street, but now there are occupied factories all the way up to 4th Street” (interview with Mark Delborg, 23 July 2016).22 According to the manager of MegaCandy, the factory employs a considerable number of local residents from Alexandra but no regular employees are from Marlboro South (interview with Keith Mumford, 23 July 2016). There are approximately 30 people who have full-time contracts, and the company expands seasonally to approximately 300 employees in anticipation of the Easter candy season. Some of these employees reside in the occupied factories and warehouses. The manager explained that he greatly prefers to source employees locally, because transit strikes and taxi delays do not impact local residents. At the time of the interview at MegaCandy two contractual employees (from Alexandra) were preparing unemployment paperwork (the UI-19 form), and explained that they usually worked during the busy season from October to April and applied for unemployment benefits for the remaining five months of the year. Originally, the MegaCandy factory was the car-phone production site for Siemens until 1986, when Siemens divested from South Africa along with many international businesses and institutions in protest of apartheid (Knight 1990). This year coincides with the beginning of the second phase of Marlboro South’s history, characterised by ‘orderly urbanisation’ and mushrooming informal residences.

MARLBORO SOUTH

3.2. Challenges of Service Delivery and Relationship to the State The owner of a local supermarket described Marlboro South as a rough area because of the residents, explaining that his business is damaged an average of once a month. He noted that business is relatively steady, but slightly declining, due not only to the number of new residents “and in particular foreigners” in the area, but also because of the worldwide economy (interview with Gino, 23 July 2016). While petty theft was his greatest concern, others are more worried about service delivery: “The main problem [for businesses in the area] is sewage. It’s blocked every day and what customer wants to see that?” (interview with Mark Delborg, 23 July 2016). Suppliers and customers are unwilling to enter the area due to the running water in the streets, coupled with the poor condition of the roads and deep potholes (interviews with Mark Delborg, 23 July 2016; Keith Mumford, 23 July 2016). As the manager of MegaCandy explained: “We struggle to get support from Eskom because they need security forces to get their people in. These fixers often face intimidation from those doing the illegal connections” (interview with Keith Mumford, 23 July 2016). Gino’s II – which took over one of the first warehouses built as a scrap yard for engine fabrication and converted it into a supermarket 22 years ago – also reported power outages due to ‘squatters’ as their primary concern in the area.23 Pollution and dumping is another common complaint by businesses, particularly in the last three to four

Figure 14. Streetscape showing informal recyclers in Marlboro South (Mark Lewis 2016)

As noted in interviews, positive qualities of Marlboro South included the potential for establishing diverse businesses, and engagement with the local residents through environmentally-focused programs such as the Jozi@Work programme and private recycling. Businesses interviewed by the survey team reflected a different viewpoint to that expressed in the indepth qualitative interviews on one significant point. The primary concerns of the survey respondents were crime and the lack of a responsive police force, in direct contrast to the qualitative interviewees who tended to report improved police response in the area. What aligned with the qualitative interviews was a sense of optimism about the potential for businesses to generate profit, although in the indepth interviews this optimism was generally coupled with a qualification: if the area is rezoned; if consistent utility services are provided; if the vacant

land can be activated; “if the government will engage with us”. These subtle differences reflect the fact that the challenges faced in Marlboro South cannot be gleaned quickly, and the complexity of the area and socio-economic structures requires thorough analysis, which can only be obtained after trust is established through active listening and repeated engagement.

3.3. Cycles of Decline and Development Beyond the issues raised about service delivery, tension between businesses, residents and the state arises from the underutilisation of space and vacant lots in Marlboro South. The area has continued to experience cycles of growth and decline – contemporary mutations of its historical context. Figures 15 to 17 show function maps for Marlboro South between 2011 and 2016.

st Street runs east to west on the southern edge of Marlboro South, bordering Alexandra. 5th Street 1 borders the northern edge of the area towards Marlboro Gardens. Numbered avenues run north to south and continue into Alexandra, but with different numbering.

MARLBORO SOUTH

Five years ago in 2011, 37 former warehouses or factories were occupied in Marlboro South (see Figure 15). One of these buildings has been demolished since, and two new buildings have been taken over by residents. Three stands and a small area along a warehouse wall are now occupied by new shack settlements and three areas loosely covered by shacks have been further densified. The most significant change has been the construction of Rashuma Village, which created an additional 137 shacks (expanded by the residents to house 158 households). These changes, while perhaps appearing trivial compared to the population influx into Gauteng as a whole, have created a population influx of approximately 2 000 residents in Marlboro South over the past five years (based on SDI’s enumeration estimates of 6 000 residents in 2011, compared with the most current figures purported by the Alex City development). Businesses have largely expressed constancy in comparison to this residential change.Several businesses– specifically, two belonging to the food production industry, a panel beater and a recycling centre – expanded their operations into adjacent lots since 2011. A new church was established on a vacant lot, as was a new site for producing concrete blocks. Several areas were fenced off with no apparent construction. An abandoned building was demolished and, unfortunately, the only school present in the area for disabled children was relocated to Alexandra. As evidenced by the function maps above, many crèches are available. However, the closest school just to the northeast of the area is separated by the wall with Marlboro Gardens. While businesses are reportedly more ‘stable’ in Wynberg and Kew, many of the businesses present today have been operating in Marlboro South for 30 to 35 years. These small changes in business have not had a

significant impact on the economic viability of the area; however they have had an impact on owners’ and managers’ perceptions of a constant sense of decline in the area.24 Business owners do not currently have a body that represents their interests to the state or assists in negotiations with residents. According to interviews this contributes to their perceptions of decline and powerlessness in Marlboro South. At present, there are in fact no business associations in Marlboro South. A proposal to create an industrial park was mentioned by the manager of MegaCandy Keith Mumford and former Ward 109 councillor Alan Fuchs (interviews with Mumford, 23 July 2016; Fuchs, 18 August 2016). Several business owners, after the dissolution of the MIBA in 2012, approached the City with a plan to cordon off their area with fencing, in return offering to pay for road repaving and all the maintenance and municipal costs associated with the new industrial park. To Mumford’s knowledge, the group did not receive a response to their application. MegaCandy is currently considering relocating to another property the company owns in Paulshof: “If the area here remains zoned industrial, then we wouldn’t mind investing [here]. It’s hard to get new business, but if we could glam it up a bit we would be happy to stay” (interview with Keith Mumford, 23 July 2016). Several business owners and managers also expressed interest in re-forming an advocacy group to represent their interests to the state. “Just use us!” one factory owner suggested, expressing frustration with politicians and city officials: “They are only worried about votes and sit behind their desks. But this isn’t something special here”, he was quick to admit, “It’s a worldwide trend.”

Figure 15. Configuration of businesses and residences in 2011 (Howe and Joos 2012)

Figure 16. Elements of change introduced between 2011 and 2015 (Howe and Joos, updated with Lucky Nkali)

Key to function maps (Figures 15-18) Residential structures Consumer services and businesses involved in catering Food production factories Recycling Automotive Churches and crèches

Figure 17. Current configuration of businesses and residences as of August 2016 (Howe and Joos 2012)

Health services New structures Newly fenced yards Abandoned

ino’s I was located in Alexandra township before the removal of Indians to Marlboro Gardens and Wendywood. Gino, the owner, was born in Alexandra G and his store was located just around the corner from Nelson Mandela’s house. Both Walter Sisulu and Queen Elizabeth visited his shop.

MARLBORO SOUTH

Figure 18. Land owned by the City and Province (hatched on the map)

3.4. Relationship to the Corridors of Freedom Contrary to popular rumours amongst residents in the area, the City and the Gauteng Province do not own a significant amount of property in Marlboro South, although this figure is much higher in Marlboro Gardens. Figure 18 shows land owned by the City and Province, with the amount of land available significantly lower than what is commonly estimated by residents in the area. The vast majority of plots remain in private ownership, many of which have been abandoned and some of which have indeterminate ownership. The variety and relative concentration of the kinds of businesses in the area creates distinct development possibilities. However, proposals currently in the implementation phase have only drawn from these potentials in a superficial manner. For example, in the case of the Greater Alexandra Automotive Hub (GAAH) project by the City and in the Gauteng Infrastructure Financing Agency (GIFA)’s involvement in the Alex City proposal, it could be purported that their sole potential is to formalise existing informal transactions rather than drawing from the area’s unique patchwork to meet the needs of existing and future stakeholders in Marlboro South. A stronger stance must be taken toward directing the kind of projects implemented, if it is to have a meaningful impact on economic development. Importantly, no respondents in the survey reported any knowledge of the COF project. The survey authors suggest that the project is perhaps too abstract a concept for people in the area, who must focus on the ‘sometimes difficult’ circumstances of their everyday lives. This statement does not necessarily apply to business proprietors in Marlboro South. In their case 24

it was often simply a lack of linking the terminology ‘Corridors of Freedom’ with the BRT construction, and a lack of awareness that the project entails more than the provision of this new transportation infrastructure. However, this assertion is indeed reflected in the sentiments of area residents. There is a serious lack of access to initiatives and project plans because those who struggle to survive economically are unwilling, for example, to use their airtime and data to research a project they see advertised on a billboard or poster. According to Charles Gininda: “I will only take the time to learn about what will impact the members of the organization [MWCC] to which I am accountable, and something with a just nice name does not tell me that it will have an impact on my area” (interview with Charles Gininda, 10 August 2016). Noting the connection between the Corridors and the BRT, the manager of Springbok Scaffolding is optimistic that readily available public transit will improve everyday life in the city: “The Rea Vaya will help overall because it will relieve traffic” (interview with Mark Delborg, 23 July 2016). He also noted the danger to pedestrians walking across the M1 and spoke approvingly of the bridges currently under construction. He has 33 employees at Springbok, roughly half of whom come from Alexandra and “a couple” from Marlboro South. The other employees travel considerable distances, originating from Pretoria, Midrand, Benoni, Soweto and Diepsloot. He is hopeful that many of his employees will utilise the system, as frequent delays and strikes from the taxi system often make them late for work. None of the business owners or managers interviewed had been approached specifically in regard to the COF project, whether or not their business lay within the UDZ outlined in the SAF. None were approached to be a part of the public participation process either.

Based on cumulative interviews with business owners and managers in July and August 2016.

MARLBORO SOUTH

If the inclusive and socially-oriented development envisioned by the City is to succeed, these stakeholders must be informed of development objectives – and even offered direct participation in the flows of information regarding planning. Although commenting on an informational right to the city as such is beyond the scope of this report, in particular the incorporation of marginalised populations into contemporary mechanisms of communication and access to information (especially programmes that can have a direct impact on the their lives) is essential in promoting the generative, inclusive city that is an explicit goal of the COF project.25

3.5. Recommendations The following recommendations should be considered in relation to the economic conditions in Marlboro South: • Preserve the opportunities already existing due to the mixed character of the area – both industrial and residential. There is potential for job creation in Marlboro South, in a particularly sustainable manner, because it can act as centrally located a node between Alexandra, Sandton and future development at the Gautrain and beyond. • Develop potential spatial clusters based on existing businesses: catering services, cooking skills development, building material production and construction training, urban gardening etc. • Incentivise UDZs: what mechanisms can promote these uses to create a vision for the area, to be shared and developed with local area stakeholders (not just political operatives)? • Approve unique and sensitive proposals that address the specific concerns of stakeholders. • Reject standard measures that do not primarily address job creation or develop sociallyoriented nodes, especially those that aim to take advantage of vulnerable and precarious populations by turning them into consumers.

25 S ee Howe (2016) for an analysis of an informational right to the city as related to planning processes.

MARLBORO SOUTH

SOCIAL CONDITIONS: ADAPTIVE RE-USE OF THE INDUSTRIAL TYPOLOGY The historical context of Marlboro South and its relationship to the highly politicised township of Alexandra mean that inclusiveness and participation are highly prioritised by stakeholders in the area. The residents of Marlboro South have often come from areas of significant marginalisation, or have been born into these conditions locally, and associate government planning with relocation, corruption, and a failure to represent the actual interests of the community. In fact, the slogan of SDI printed across their members’ t-shirts speaks to this phenomenon and is a mantra taken seriously in Marlboro South: “Nothing For Us Without Us.”

4.1. “Fences and Neighbours”: Relations Between Actors in Marlboro South As in much of the GCR, the fence is a symbol of postapartheid security, and the principle “good fences make good neighbours” is embedded into the modus operandi of Marlboro South. Despite the mixed-use character that the area has developed over the past two decades, the potential of interaction, or inclusive development as described in the SDF, has not come to fruition. By examining the demographics of the residents, their access to opportunities, and their relationships to organisations and the surrounding businesses, a more nuanced picture of the impact of marginalisation on Marlboro South residents can be formed.

4.1.1. Characterising residents The marginalised community living in Marlboro Industrial Township consists largely of young residents under the age of 50 years (GCRO 2009). Many initially came to the area in search of a place to settle due to the immense spatial pressure in neighbouring Alexandra, or arrived from their homes across Gauteng and the surrounding provinces once influx control was removed in the late 1980s. They report having lived in the area for an average of 22.6 years, and in their precise dwelling for an average of 18.4 years (see Figure 19). Of the 65% who have lived elsewhere in their lifetime, just under 15% have reported relocating to Marlboro South from Alexandra and 10% from elsewhere in Gauteng; nearly 20% originated in the Limpopo Province and 10% from other South African provinces. Despite widespread perceptions, a relatively low 25

number of foreigners reside in Marlboro South. According to the collected survey data and in-depth interviews, most non-South Africans originate from Mozambique and Zimbabwe, with a small number from Somalia and Nigeria concentrated in the northwest blocks of the area. In the years 2011, 2015 and 2016 qualitative interviews with residential factory residents were conducted, and then cross-referenced with the commissioned quantitative survey and data on Marlboro South from the 2011 Census and the Gauteng City-Region Observatory’s (GCRO) 2009 Quality of Life survey. Most residents reported coming to the area because it was close to job opportunities, also emphasising that it was available and they had found ‘emergency accommodation’ through word of mouth or newspaper advertisements (see Figure 20). This aligns with the quantitative survey data, in which 30% of residents were born in the area, 20% came because it was located “close to work or school”, 17% because it was affordable or available, and 8% because of family “or other reasons”. Approximately equal proportions of the population are employed and unemployed according to the survey, and Marlboro South offers few opportunities for people to access recreation or educational opportunities. The only school in the area was a school for handicapped children, which was relocated to Alexandra and the space is now used as a makeshift community centre. While adults often play games or do small-scale craft projects, infrastructure is not available for them to promote their products or market their skills; children have only one compacted dirt sports field within the area, and primarily play on the streets (which are also travelled on by industrial trucks).

See Howe (2016) for an analysis of an informational right to the city as related to planning processes.

MARLBORO SOUTH

Highway Arterial Roads

4.1.2. Access to infrastructure Rea Vaya BRT Availability of clean water, electricity and sanitary Arterial Roads facilities is one of the greatest challenges facing the Main Roads inhabitants of residential factories. One water tap Local Roads provides water for washing, cleaning, bathing and Open Spacescooking for the entire community. Inside the buildings it is dark, even during daytime hours, and electricity Marlboro South is needed to illuminate interior rooms that lack Louis Botha Development windows. Utility connections are illegal and residents Corridor struggle to legalise them in a way they can afford. Alexandra Renewal Some Project warehouses and factories have functioning sanitation, and typically in each building two or three toilets are utilised by between 130 and 160 residents.26 Portable toilets and the bucket system Number of years are also widely used, particularly when access to the residing in the area city water and sanitation systems has been truncated. 1 - 11 However, there are two clinics in the area, one of which 12 - 23 is currently undergoing a complete reconstruction through the ARP. Residents report comparatively high 24 - 34 levels of satisfaction with access to and quality of 35 - 48 health services in Marlboro South. 49 - 72

Marlboro Gardens Marlboro

Rashuma Village

City of Tshwane Highway Arterial Roads Rea Vaya BRT Arterial Roads Main Roads Local Roads Open Spaces

Alexandra Marlboro South Louis Botha Development Corridor

Rashuma Village

Alexandra Renewal Project

City of Tshwane Highway Arterial Roads

Coordinate System: GCS Hartebeesthoek 1994 Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Date: 2017/06/12 Units: Degree

Number of years residing in the area 1 - 11

Rea Vaya BRT

12 - 23

Arterial Roads

24 - 34

Main Roads

35 - 48

Local Roads

49 - 72

Open Spaces Marlboro South Louis Botha Development Corridor

Number years Figure 19. of Number of years survey respondents have been residing in Marlboro South residing in the area 0 0.075 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 12 - 23 24 - 34 35 - 48 26

0.3

0.45

0.6 Km

4.1.3. Relationships between residents and businesses

Alexandra Renewal Project

1 - 11

0 0.075 0.15

Most Marlboro South residents depend on public transportation to travel to their jobs. Existing minibus taxi routes do not lead through the area (with the exception of 1st Avenue leading from the Alexandra Taxi Association building in Marlboro Gardens into Alexandra) and local taxis drive only on specific streets at irregular intervals. Thus, people frequently walk to Sandton or to the Pan Africa taxi rank for longer distance travel. The taxis in the area cost R6 to ride to Pan Africa Mall, where a trip to the CBD, for example, will cost another R16. As such, most taxi commuters require more than an hour to reach their workplace unless it is within walking distance (Howe and Joos 2012). With the completion of the BRT connecting to Sandton, the new infrastructure and cheaper fares can potentially have a significant impact on the lives and livelihoods of Marlboro South residents.

The relationship between residents and businesses in the area is best described as ‘complex’. With a couple of notable exceptions, most business owners and factory managers do not, in principle, wish for the removals of the residents. They even agree that the area has great potential if it were to be rezoned as mixed-use. While the primary challenges that businesses describe in Marlboro South do result from the residents (pollution, utility service irregularities, contestation and social instability in the area), business owners do not blame

the residents themselves. By and large, they blame the inaction of the state for decline. “Businesses are not interested in engaging with us because of the decreasing value of businesses and what they see as safety issues for their customers” explained one Marlboro South resident (interview with Thulisile Gininda, 24 August 2016). While this is the overarching sentiment of interviewed residents, conversations with businesses owners and managers indicate that there may be a lack of awareness of initiatives by business owners to engage with the area’s residents; a further possibility is that such an engagement does not suit the narrative of isolation and marginalisation that accords the residents a form of collective bargaining power towards the state. For example, MegaCandy noted that they had tried to offer help to the shack settlement adjacent to their property, explaining that it was to the benefit of both parties – upgrading would improve the perception of their business to partners and customers and, in addition, would act as a form of corporate social responsibility. However, no projects resulted from the engagement between the factory management and the neighbouring residents, in part due to the strong hierarchy within the settlement and its relationship to the MWCC. According to the owner: “There’s a small leadership group and what they say goes” (interview with Keith Mumford, 23 July 2016). Furthermore, he noted that trying to engage with the state had not led to results. Prior to the recent relocation of Alexandra residents to Rashuma Village on 8th Avenue, businesses attempted to engage with the City Council to receive control of the vacant land, in order to import prefabricated houses and allocate them to shack dwellers in Marlboro South. To his knowledge, the Council was not interested in this suggestion. He noted that, in retrospect, it would have been complicated for a business to also act as a landlord in the area, and although it was unfortunate that they were not able to have a positive impact on the Marlboro South ‘community’, it was perhaps a blessing in disguise to avoid taking on this role. What residents appear to share with businesses, as indicated in the quantitative survey, are concerns for the most formidable challenges in the area. While 28.5% report overcrowding as their greatest concern, 16.5% are mostly concerned with service delivery, primarily with regular water and electricity provision; 15% with unemployment; 13% with crime, in particular petty theft; and 8% with littering, dumping and rats.

Estimate 49by-Sandra 72 van Rensburg of SDI in 2011.

MARLBORO SOUTH

Marlboro South Louis Botha Development Corridor Alexandra Renewal Project Open Spaces Highways

Marlboro Gardens

Arterial Roads

Marlboro

Main Roads Local Roads Rea Vaya BRT

Rashuma Village

Reason for locating in the area

City of Tshwane

No Reason Born in the area

Marlboro South

Family

Louis Botha Development Corridor Alexandra Renewal Project

Proximity to work

Open Spaces

Seeking Employment

Highways

Arterial Roads

No choice

Main Roads

Other

Rea Vaya BRT

Marlboro SouthVillage Rashuma Louis Botha Development Corridor

Reason for locating in the area

Coordinate System: GCS Hartebeesthoek 1994 Datum: Hartebeesthoek 1994 Date: 2017/05/19 Units: Degree

Alexandra Renewal Project

No Reason

Open Spaces

Born in the area

Highways

Family

Arterial Roads

Affordable

Main Roads

Proximity to work

Local Roads

Seeking Employment

Rea Vaya BRT

Services

exandra

No choice

Reason for locating in the area

Other

No Reason Born in the areareasons for residing in Marlboro South Figure 20. Respondents’ Family Affordable 0.075 0.15

Proximity to work 0.3

0.45

Seeking Employment

Services

Alexandra

Local Roads

City of Tshwane

Affordable

0.6 Km

0.075 0.15

0.3

0.45

0.6 Km

Figure 21. Residential factory electrical system (Mark Lewis 2016)

4.1.4. Networks with the state and civil society Mapping an actor-network diagram in Marlboro South reveals the complexity of the relationships between area stakeholders and government institutions. The map in Figure 23 depicts the primary bodies that influence Marlboro South resident and community leader Charles Gininda in his everyday life: the MWCC (a form of residents association, of which is he is the spokesperson), the Informal Settlement Network (ISN) – including CORC and SDI – businesses and their owners (formal factories and warehouses, informal businesses, churches etc.), the City (JDA and ARP, and by association the JPC and JRA) and the Gauteng Province (GED). The MWCC, which was formed in 2003 in response to the threat of evictions against residents, is the primary organisation representing the area’s residents. In the 1990s and early 2000s, building owners remained the primary point of contact, and mediators of service delivery, between the City and residents. This became increasingly difficult with the decline of the area and flight of the former industrialists. In order to engage with the City and protest the rapidly deteriorating conditions in the warehouses without utilities, the MWCC formed a body and began the rent boycotts that largely continue today. The MWCC is a non-political

body that considers its primary purpose contesting eviction court orders and lobbying for improved conditions for the residents of factories and shacks in Marlboro South. In general, residents interviewed reported that they feel safe through policing and social control; while petty theft is a concern, compared to other case studies along the corridors, residents are less worried about violent crime, drinking or drug abuse. The Bramley Police or the private security companies in the area, Scorpion and ADT, are the first contact for any instance of crime, as opposed to a Community Policing Forum (CPF). While there is a CPF in the area run communally with Marlboro Gardens, it is not endorsed by the MWCC or the majority of area residents. This is because they felt their concerns, which are so different from those of Marlboro Gardens residents, were not being addressed by the CPF overall (interview with Charles Gininda, 10 August 2016). The Bramley Police, in contrast, were praised in multiple interviews for their rapid response times as well as their approach to conflict resolution: “They listen first and then arrest or punish only if they can’t come to another solution– and most importantly, they explain why they are taking action.”27 This increase in trust can certainly be considered a positive development.

Services No choice

Other MARLBORO SOUTH

Views expressed by four Marlboro South residents interviewed in July and August 2016.

MARLBORO SOUTH

Modes of transport

29% Walking

48%

Minibus taxi

48%

Minibus-taxi

29%

Walking

11%

Car

Rea Vaya

Other bus

Uber / metred taxi

Delivery truck

INFORMAL SETTLEMENT NETWORK / SLUM DWELLERS INTERNATIONAL

JOHANNESBURG SOCIAL HOUSING COMPANY GAUTENG ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

JOHANNESBURG PROPERTY COMPANY

UNIVERSITY STUDIOS RASHUMA MARLBORO VILLAGE WAREHOUSE CRISIS COMMITTEE

ALEXANDRA DEV. FORUM

ALEXANDRA RENEWAL PROJECT

CROSA

JOHANNESBURG DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Figure 22. Modes of transport relied upon by residents RESIDENTS

The ARP is the primary government organisation interacting with residents in the area. Other, related partners that also impact residents include the Alexandra Development Forum (ADF), the current iteration of the GADF, and by extension the JDA and JPC. The MWCC withdrew from participating in the GADF, in which they were involved for several years in the early 2000s, because “it was good for information but heavily influenced by the ANC and became embroiled in political conflicts.” Reinforcing the historical divide in perception between Alexandra and Marlboro, the latter felt ignored by fellow organisation members who derided Marlboro South residents as “all from Zimbabwe” and not crucial to their mandate (interview with Charles Gininda, 10 August 2016). Such events – and the lack of inclusion of residents or their representative organisations – have perpetuated misperceptions about state involvement in Marlboro South. Most residents in both the quantitative survey and qualitative interviews reported that conditions have remained the same in the area because “there have not been opportunities to make the plans we have, even if the plans are our own ideas we discuss and want to share with the City” (interview with Charles Gininda, 2016). The MWCC allegedly even told ward councillors, members of the police force and the general public (through SDI after the 2012 evictions) that they would be happy to live in dense, high-rise developments, and even to pay rent, as long as they could be relocated within a reasonable distance (which MWCC spokesperson Charles Gininda described as within 5 km or less). While discussing this in the interview, the latter’s wife quickly interjected and said “You’re crazy! We don’t want to pay rent! We haven’t been paying rent and we don’t want to start!” (interview with Thulisile

MARLBORO SOUTH

Gininda, 24 August 2016). The couple also described frustration with the concept of relocation beyond a few kilometres, because they would no longer be the beneficiaries of the businesses and processes to which they have contributed. Finally, Charles spoke about the Rea Vaya as an example of imposing plans and not consulting anyone outside of political channels. In fact MWCC members protested the project when they saw the boards advertising the BRT construction appear on Old Pretoria Road, because the primary contractor on the job was from Pretoria. “They(‘re) bringing in their own team–where’s the benefit for the locals? Is it not possible to ensure that local subcontractors are used?”, Charles questioned. However, despite initial contestation of the BRT, all of the residents interviewed agreed that more connectivity would provide increased opportunities for residents, simply by providing more affordable transportation to look for work. Nevertheless, none of the residents interviewed were aware that the COF encompasses more than the BRT infrastructure project, or that socio-economic development could potentially bring change to their area.

MARLBORO GARDENS CPF

THE RESIDENTIAL FACTORY ARENA

BRAMLEY POLICE

SCORPION SECURITY / ADT SECURITY

WATER / SANITATION

BUSINESSES

LAND / BUSINESS OWNERS

ALEX CITY

ESKOM

VACANT LAND BOMBELA

KITSO INKANYELI

IHS

4.2. Residential Factories as a Settlement Typology The term ‘residential factories’ is used in this report to describe the warehouses and factories that were rented out to or appropriated by the people of Marlboro South. It implies the adaptive reuse of the building, as well as the reproduction of this typology that has grown over time. As an urbanisation process, this typology is more closely aligned with backyarding as opposed to greenfield shack settlements. Figures 25 and 26 show the floor plan and elevation

Figure 23. Actor-network diagram based on the narrative of Charles Gininda (2016)

MARLBORO SOUTH

respectively of a residential factory located at 44 2nd Street in Marlboro South, in which 150 households reside. Additional shacks are currently being installed along the fence adjacent to the TV Tower. Figure 27 shows the exterior of a residential factory on 2nd Avenue and 3rd Street in Marlboro South. The model has potential because people are utilising existing structures and infrastructure; while the challenge lie in the overuse of existing services and the inability of planning or utility departments to address such dense development in an area not zoned residential.

The density of the Alexandra township and the inside of residential factories exhibit similar building patterns. This phenomenon is noteworthy because so much open space exists in Marlboro South. However, due to the initial circumstances under which occupation occurred, similar sizes and densities of construction were reproduced inside of the warehouses. Although significantly more greenfield development has occurred over the past five years â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and this growth may be exacerbated by construction of new shacks by the state as part of a relocation from Alexandra â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the residential factory is still the dominant model.

W51

W30

W10

W52

W3 W36

W66

W35 W25

W53 W24 W11 W37

W42 W26

W34

W65 W54 W12 W33 W38

W39

W41

W40

W29

W28

W30

W27

W64 W55 W32

W13 W31

H2O

W63 W56

? EL W57 W48

W47

W15

W14

W58

W59

Restaurant

W62

TV Tower

W60

Figure 25. Floor plan of 44 2nd Street residential factory in Marlboro South (Howe and Joos 2012) F W.H. HEIM ENGINEERING SERVICES TEL. 440-9716

EMERG

44 2nd str.

WORKSHOPS cc.

ganz grob terrain

Figure 26. Elevation of 44 2nd Street residential factory in Marlboro South (Howe and Joos 2012)

Figure 24. A room in a residential factory, where a gas lap is utilised for light (Mark Lewis 2016)

MARLBORO SOUTH

Contested development: the Greater Alexandra Automotive Hub Transplanted settlement: Rashuma Village

Figure 27. Exterior of residential factory in Marlboro South (Mark Lewis 2016)

Figure 29. Rashuma Village ‘temporary housing’ (Mark Lewis 2016)

In contrast to the residential factories in Marlboro South are newly constructed shack dwellings on 8th Avenue, adjacent to the Zandfontein transit camp (which residents consider to be a part of Alexandra). The current settlement, referred to as Rashuma Village (Sotho for “we work”), was constructed on abandoned land for people evicted from illegally occupied flats in Alexandra. After being evicted they initially erected shacks or slept out in the open outside of flats under construction in Botlhabela Extension (Manala 2015). They were then moved to the Marlboro Sports Club in November 2014, and finally to the corrugated iron shacks financed by the government in January 2016. The representative for this group, Egnes Mothapo, said they had hoped to be moved to completed housing developments in the area, which have been unoccupied for years (Manala 2015). Concerns emerged immediately about the safety of the unfenced settlement, the quality of the construction, and the lack of facilities for the 158 households that reside there today.

Figure 28. Interior of residential factory at 44 2nd Street in Marlboro South (Mark Lewis 2016)

MARLBORO SOUTH

One resident said: “I like living here but it’s not a home”, explaining that their circumstances were not dramatically different between Alexandra, the Sports Club and Marlboro South (interview with Richard Khumalo, 12 August 2016). When the government brought them to the site, a representative allegedly told the group it would be a temporary solution, promising to return soon to give them a timeframe for how long they

were likely to reside in the area. Apparently he never came back. The 137 households were provided with one community tap, which means they have to stand in line for 10-15 minutes to get water on days when it is hot or lots of washing occurs. A row of 13 Sunshine-brand chemical toilets serve all of the residents, who worry about children falling in and the rats that are attracted to the site (according to urban legend, a three month old baby left on the street side while her mother was washing recently had an ear chewed off by a rat). Cooking is done on propane stoves and there is no electricity in the settlement; however, there is a slightly lower risk of fire than in autoconstructed greenfield settlements, because the zinc shacks were constructed with spaces between their walls. Most people in this newly established settlement walk or, if they have enough money, take local taxis to Pan Africa Mall. They do not have much interaction with the residential factories or businesses otherwise. Resident Richard Khumalo is currently hopeful for change because a new ward councillor was elected, reflecting a sentiment commonly articulated around Marlboro South: any change is better than continued broken promises. Residents would most like to see improved security, fences around their area, and clean and paved streets. This reiterates service delivery as one of the core development challenges in Marlboro South. MARLBORO SOUTH

Residential factories also replicate township patterns of semi-public space and the social structure of the courtyard; the communal spaces found in Marlboro South reflect those of Alexandra (see Figure 28). In a typical township structure, courtyards provide

space for group activities. Equivalent conditions exist within the residential factories or within the fenced area immediately surrounding a given building, establishing a form of social control over what is the sole entry and exit to the dwellings.

Figure 30. Social spaces created in the entryways of residential factories (Mark Lewis 2016)

In 2012 students and instructors from the University of Johannesburg conducted an urban design studio in Marlboro South.Awqaf SA, an independent communitybased and owned trust, designated two buildings they owned in the area to convert into residences, including an adjacent lot with multifunctional purposes and parking. The residents to be relocated onto the site were residing in the former Chico’s Ice Cream Factory building on 2nd Street in Marlboro South. During the design studio violent evictions occurred at Chico’s, a poignant reminder for the students and instructors that the decisions architects, planners and officials make have a concrete impact on lives and livelihoods of the city’s most precarious populations. In collaboration with SDI and CORC, studio leader Jhono Bennett contested the evictions and assisted the residents with innovative temporary housing. Unfortunately the project never regained its momentum, although talk of returning to the site to plan a new intervention has recently resurfaced (interview with Jhono Bennett, 24 August 2016).

4.3.

Social Milieus and Development Initiatives

Marlboro South contains several social and economic groups that live in extremely precarious conditions, and

MARLBORO SOUTH

whose voices are often invisible in the development process. They face risks of eviction, of fire and of truncated basic services on the most elementary level. They are limited by the cost and distance associated with accessing economic opportunity and are treated prejudicially by development forums. This vulnerability must be addressed by the COF, which have the potential to significantly alter the profile of the area with the BRT, especially if current precinct plans or private development are permitted to move forward. Development could fundamentally alter the socio-economic structure of Marlboro South.

in Turffontein, City Deep, Pennyville and Marlboro. However, the distribution of any funding for social or economic development does not appear to be located in the general Marlboro area. For example, the Louis Botha SAF denotes the provision of R6.8 million for libraries, but none are foreseen in Marlboro South. R14 million is designated for social support facilities, none of which are targeted specifically for Marlboro South. R109 million is allotted for sports, with no facilities planned for Marlboro South (CoJ 2014a: 142). ANC youth leader for Ward 108, Thabang, explained that while their official political position remains that the main development challenge in the area is housing with proper services, unemployment is a serious concern, with community facilities close behind. Indeed, many of the residential factories and shack settlements do not have electricity, there is no common space for students to do their homework, or for adult education. According to Thabang: “Marlboro needs proper zoning – we want social infrastructure and density” (interview, 11 August 2016). One of the few local stakeholders aware of the COF, he views the project as BRT development, creating “a chance to bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots and address apartheid [spaces].” Ward 108 councillor Deborah Francisco sees the primary challenge in Marlboro South as removing the stigma of the industrial area and considering it a mixed-use area. She has been lobbying for removal of the wall and integration into ‘greater Alexandra’ in a more meaningful way (interview with Charles Gininda, 12 July 2016). “Here is the future of Alex”, Thabang added as a final comment, “if only the private landowners would cooperate.”

4.4. Recommendations Some recommendations in terms of the social conditions in Marlboro South: • Public spaces and social development in the severely underserved Alexandra and Marlboro South could act as a bridge to Marlboro Gardens, Linbro Park, and beyond to Modderfontein and Frankenwald. In particular, the youth can be impacted through nodal initiatives – educational, cultural, and recreational facilities existing in the same space have proven potential to gradually dissolve barriers across race and class lines. Sport has proven to be a highly effective unifier in other South African contexts. • Necessary social services based on existing paucities: library with a study centre, adult education and technology hub (including job‑finding resources and skills training), sports and recreation centre with sports fields, social cohesion spaces e.g. community gardens or cooperative artisan projects. • The space for accommodating residents is readily available if the potential of the land can be unlocked. A programme for acquiring land that is in arrears, or in cases when owners cannot be located, should be redesigned for social and economic development purposes. • Most importantly, equitable access for residents of all backgrounds must be the emphasis, not facilities for consumption and private profit.

A description of housing development in areas zoned part of the corridors (CoJ 2014: 11) mentions that 30% of housing created in Marlboro and Alexandra should be considered affordable to deal with “overcrowded and invaded buildings”. In order to realise such social inclusivity within the corridors, the City is also planning to invest in acquiring land for affordable housing rather than relying on incentives for private developers; continuing to embrace the state as a key agent in housing production. JOSHCO, the City’s high density social housing provider, plans to develop five projects within the three priority corridors over the next three years, to the value of R269 million

MARLBORO SOUTH

DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES OF MARLBORO SOUTH IN THE CORRIDORS OF FREEDOM The initiative for development corridors is primarily driven at the provincial level, although consolidation and densification initiatives have been under discussion by local councils for some time (interview with Alan Fuchs, 18 August 2016). The City’s SDF specifically addresses the densities and socio-economic uses that should be promoted through rates and incentives along the corridors (CoJ 2016). In fact, out of the five target objectives for the new SDF, four are already present in Alexandra and Marlboro South (ASM 2016). The latter has long been a compact, inclusive, connected and resilient urban assemblage. What the area needs for further development are the traits of the “generative city” described in the SDF: focusing investment in nodes with the potential for innovative job creation, high-quality and appropriate public space, and sustainability (interview with Alan Fuchs, 18 August 2016). This shift follows the logic of the COF project, with its focus on transitoriented nodal development of economic and social opportunity. The area of the corridors in Marlboro also reflects a shift towards public transportation and sustainability, and was defined by a maximum “catchment area to the bus stations” set at 500 m. “The goal is not just density, but ridership” noted planners from the City who were interviewed (interviews with Ayanda Masuku, 16 August 2016; Andiswa Bidla, 16 August 2016; David Boberg, 16 August 2016). Furthermore, two new bridges are under construction across the M1 highway, connecting Alexandra and Marlboro to Sandton and protecting the approximately 10 000 pedestrians that cross between these areas daily (interview with Neels Letter, 17 August 2016). The ‘Great Walk’ bridge at the Grayston M1 exit is aimed at non-motorised transport. The second bridge expansion at Lees Street will accommodate the new BRT, which will turn west towards Sandton through Marlboro Extension 1 at the Lees Street Station (the latter being proposed for the city-owned land between 5th Street and ATA land in Marlboro Gardens). Future plans for ‘greater Alexandra’ that will impact Marlboro South currently include three major projects: Frankenwald, Bergvallei and Linbro Park. Frankenwald is a property belonging to the University of the Witwatersrand and has been under discussion for development in conjunction with Alexandra since the early 2000s. Progress was stalled by litigation and it is one of the City’s primary targets for development at the time of writing (interviews with Ayanda Masuku, 16 August 2016; Andiswa Bidla, 16 August 2016; David 28

MARLBORO SOUTH

Boberg, 16 August 2016). The ARP has planned 3 500 units on approximately 45 of the 239 hectares available on the Frankenwald property, and is considering offering restitution land to claims from Alexandra there (interview with Neels Letter, 17 August 2016). Current transit plans suggest a BRT feeder route from the proposed Lees Street Station east between Marlboro along the north of Alexandra. A BRT link down London Road, south of Alexandra, turns north through the East Bank. If these two interchanges are connected they could potentially serve as a link from Marlboro South to the Gautrain Station, which is currently inaccessible (interviews with Neels Letter, 17 August 2016; Ayanda Masuku, 16 August 2016). The plan for the city-owned Bergvallei land adjacent to the Marlboro Gautrain Station is focused around the creation of a mixed-use node north of the station, with a pedestrian bridge connection to the south and Marlboro Gardens. The area is envisioned as a “hub for creative thinking”, with the planning group proposing education and think-tank facilities, for example, for alternative energy and technology (ASM 2016). Linbro Park, which still consists of many small agricultural holdings, is considered to be too far away from the corridors for serious consideration by the project at this time (interview with David Boberg, 16 August 2016). However, land parcels have been purchased by the JPC for housing development by the ARP. Once these units are completed, the link to Ekurhuleni’s BRT system to the east of this suburb could be considered.

I nterview requests with the ATA management were initially granted but had to be cancelled due to an emergency meeting of the managers. The quotes originate from the heavily armed bodyguards who wished to remain anonymous and were supplemented with an interview with ATA spokesperson Jabulani Ntshangase a few weeks later in August 2016.

MARLBORO SOUTH

5.1. The Louis Botha SAF The new SDF published by the City, according to Todes et al (2016), “anticipates using form based zoning, which may address some [...] issues, but producing quality environments requires careful assessment and contextual response to development at a detailed level.” Marlboro South is listed as a priority ward for development in City documents on the Corridors of Freedom. However, in comparison to plans for the other seven specially designated areas along Louis Botha Avenue, precinct plans for Area 8 (including approximately half of Marlboro South) are still in the early stages of development. Alexandra is listed as a transport priority (CoJ 2015a) and a cluster housing project is marked on the map at the intersection of 3rd Avenue and 3rd Street as part of the “Marlboro Cluster’ (CoJ 2015a: 48-51). However, this cluster is also marked “future” and the rest of the area on the aforementioned map is simply marked as “industrial light.” Marlboro is not directly mentioned in the Action Implementation Plans by the City (CoJ 2015b), nor in the plans by City Power (City Power 2015). What does not yet appear to be part of the conversation on Marlboro South among planning experts or urban developers is a context-specific plan to entice investment in economic and social development – for example, opportunities for education, skills training or social and cultural facilities in Marlboro South beyond the clinic renewals and automotive hub. Moreover, based on the literature review and interviews with area stakeholders conducted for this report, there were no public meetings on the COF held in Marlboro itself, and ward councillors were allowed full discretion in determining who should be included in participatory planning processes related to current developments like the automotive hub (interviews with Thabang, 11 August 2016; Deborah Francisco, 9 August 2016). This lack of direct engagement is reflected both in the developments in the implementation stage as well as in the plans that outline how development should occur in alignment with the corridors. The SAF for the Louis Botha Corridor was commissioned by the City and completed by Iyer Urban Design Studio and Local Studio, in collaboration with Utho Capital, Hatcha Goba and Mayathart Architects. This plan is the fourth of five levels of spatial policy in the City, outlining the spatial response to implement the desired policies within the selected development areas. Finally, an Urban Design Framework, or what is commonly referred to as a precinct plan, provides the

MARLBORO SOUTH

detailed designs for local areas including the specific urban form (CoJ 2014a: 16-17). The recommendation of the SAF includes a note that “the optimal mix of economic, education, transport and recreational opportunities will ultimately give rise to a peoplecentred City of Johannesburg, where the needs of all citizens are placed at the core of all planning processes” (CoJ 2014a: 9). It is therefore up to these local precincts to determine whether or not the desired mixes are actually achieved. Louis Botha as a corridor is an important road for transportation, as well as economic opportunity. In Marlboro, where it is called Old Pretoria Road, the BRT is likely to generate contestation with the minibus taxis. The ATA headquarters are located on its intersection with Marlboro Drive, the road that separates Marlboro South from Marlboro Gardens. This land is located directly across the road and to the north of the cityowned Bergvallei property where the Lees Street Station is planned. Jabulani Ntshangase, spokesperson for the ATA, explained that the association was informed about the BRT project but was unaware of the COF terminology (interview, 25 August 2016).28 He also noted that the ATA was approached and offered incentives to participate in the Louis Botha Corridor; however this was after the routes were established and not during the planning phase. The condition for participation was an exchange: taxis for buses. According to Ntshangase: “We declined the offer as it’s not good for our business which it took very long to be in the level that it’s in now.” Furthermore, he foresees congestion along the route once it is reduced to a single lane, likely decreasing taxi ridership: “50-70% of commuters will opt for buses when this happens, and that is going to hit hard on the income the taxis make in a day, week or month” (interview with Jabulani Ntshangase, 25 August 2016). In the transition process alternative routes will be established and, although the official position of the ATA is that talks with government are ongoing and violence is an unlikely result, area residents are concerned. “They have to shoot at things, they have to kill at least one person so people are too afraid to use the buses and stay with the taxis” (interview with Charles Gininda, 24 August 2016). The Louis Botha SAF vaguely notes that “existing taxi services are envisioned to change” however whether the industry can be gradually formalised and incorporated, or whether it will simply be displaced, cannot be determined based on past precedents. This will unfold uniquely in Johannesburg according to the complexity of local conditions.

MARLBORO SOUTH

Regarding Marlboro South specifically, the Louis Botha SAF notes the need to stimulate investment by creating opportunities for industrial development into the area, as well as in Wynberg and Kew (CoJ 2014a). It also notes that in general in the Louis Botha Corridor there is a limited amount of land available for social infrastructure, which is not the case in Marlboro South with its numerous vacant stands. This is likely the principle behind the “Marlboro Cluster” project, which is indicated as a potential site for social development in the SAF’s map (CoJ 2014a: 53, 125). A non-motorised transit link connecting Marlboro Gardens to Alexandra is also suggested in the precinct plan for Area 8, which would finally penetrate the walls that have separated the area since its inception (CoJ 2014a). If implemented, this would represent a major transformation in the perception and history of Marlboro South. However the likelihood of this is uncertain because the wall in Marlboro Gardens was erected by private council house owners in the 1960s.

5.2. Core Development Challenges for Marlboro South Based on interviews, survey and site analysis it is clear that, at this emerging phase in Marlboro South’s history, there are four core development challenges related to the Corridors that must be immediately addressed in order to lay the foundations for improving the area’s economic and social conditions. These four development challenges are:

01 Zoning 02 Service delivery 03 Property ownership 04 Direct resident and stakeholder interaction These concerns also correspond with the conclusions of the 2015 Quality of Life survey conducted by the GCRO, which noted negative trends in the perceptions of crime and safety as well as participation across Gauteng (GCRO 2016).

5.2.1. Zoning The first core challenge identified with regard to the development of Marlboro South is how to account for the current mixture of residential and commercial functions. Since the area was zoned commercial in terms of the 1980 Sandton Town Planning Scheme it has retained this status throughout all further iterations of planning legislation, including the Consolidated Johannesburg Town Planning Scheme

MARLBORO SOUTH

of 2010, which replaced the 1980 legislation (CoJ 2010). Therefore, development planning faces a form of “Morton’s fork” (a dilemma in which both choices are equally undesirable). Because the area is zoned commercial, government institutions are unable to provide improved services to the residents living under a plethora of conditions, and since the residents cannot be removed or evicted without providing alternative housing within a reasonable distance (as a result of the 2012 court decision) government is also unable to address the needs of businesses. Thus, as one could expect, this results in both the residents and businesses interviewed expressing frustration with the inaction of government institutions. Out of five businesses interviewed in depth, four expressed frustration or dissatisfaction specifically related to inaction.29 Speaking to the greater context of Marlboro in proximity to Alexandra, an employee from the Department of Land Use Planning (interview with Andiswa Bidla, 16 August 2016) commented: Alex is an interesting township […] Policies that apply are still benefitting bylaws applicable under the former African township administration, [which was] a totally different framework to the Corridors of Freedom. We need radical movement to convince the community to buy into change, because they are comfortable with the [land-use] rights they have.

5.2.2. Service delivery Zoning, therefore, is the partial cause of the second core challenge: utility service delivery. Businesses are disrupted by the illegal utility connections, petty theft, and aesthetic and health concerns such as dumping conducted by residents. The manager of Springbok Scaffolding, for example, noted that they require constant 380 volt power supply for the machinery with which they manufacture their metal scaffolding. When services are disrupted their machines malfunction and they have to halt production, sometimes for several hours (interview with Mark Delborg, 23 July 2016). Along with several other business owners and managers interviewed, he explained that he does not have a problem with ‘the squatters’ illegally utilising the power grid, and would even be willing to pay for the electricity use, as long as they could receive regular supply for their machinery. Water, however, was his most urgent concern: backed up storm drains and burst pipes flood the streets and drain into the yards of the factories and warehouses, destroying stored materials and creating potholes so severe supply trucks can have difficulties passing through the area.

Based on interviews conducted in July and August 2016 by the author in Marlboro South. The fifth business interviewed was a spaza shop owner, who stated she had no opinion on the matter.

MARLBORO SOUTH

5.2.3. Property ownership Development is also impeded by the complex assemblage of property owners. When Marlboro was initially formed, stands were purchased by individuals and corporations (interviews with Neels Letter, 17 August 2016; Alan Fuchs, 18 August 2016). There are 321 stands in the area today, with 93 vacant (although this number can change quickly, based on field observations over the past five years). One business owner stated that they wish the City would allow them to form an improvement district and turn the northern section of Marlboro into an industrial park. Along with several other businesses in the area, they proposed to manage utilities and roads if they were granted this permission (interview with Keith Mumford, 23 July 2016). A related sentiment was expressed by another business owner, who wished that the City would provide information on abandoned stands, such that interested parties could become active in purchasing defunct land and taking re-development of the area into their own hands (interview with Louis Seeco, 12 August 2016). A City official also noted that one significant potential of the area is the enthusiasm of young investors to purchase properties, yet the owners cannot be found: “Until the city has a plan for taking control of these areas, things are at an impasse.” He suggested that a proactive strategy aligned with the Better Buildings Programme implemented in the Johannesburg CBD would be positively received by the community,30 even more so than development by the government which would likely be highly contested by residents of Alexandra due to ongoing perceptions that residents of Marlboro are less entitled to assistance than those of ‘Old Alex’ (interview with Neels Letter, 17 August 2016).

of the survey confirm that these experiences are not an isolated phenomenon: only 0.9% of residents surveyed were aware of the initiative and 1.4% of businesses had engaged with the topic. These statistics, as well as the detailed interviews, reveal that community participation in Marlboro is restricted to the political sphere and that initiatives are perceived by local actors as ‘imposed’ rather than participatory, because they are not consulted directly about their needs nor involved in the process of developing the ‘imposed’ initiatives. A key example of failed participation is when the GAAH met with a company that the City hired to ‘do participation’ (interview with Thabang, 11 August 2016). Political leaders in the area had approached the JPC between 10 and 15 years prior with plans for turning eight vacant lots of City- and Provinceowned land into recreational spaces. They received no response. It seemed that suddenly the land was incorporated into an automotive hub and industrial park. “Projects should speak to the people […] putting stuff in the media alone isn’t enough. The City needs to put marketing to engaging with people on the ground, to make them part and parcel of the ideas and let them take ownership of the ideas. Otherwise they won’t be custodians of the results” (interview with Thabang, 11 August 2016).

5.2.4. Resident and stakeholder interaction Finally, a core challenge facing the future development of Marlboro South is addressing the everyday stakeholders in the area, which includes reframing communication and community participation. Overwhelmingly, no knowledge of the COF project is present amongst businesses or residents. Out of nine in-depth interviews and five cursory interviews conducted with local stakeholders in Marlboro, only three were aware of the name at all: the ward councillor, the head of the ANC youth league and the head of the MWCC. One business owner and one resident associated the initiative with the Rea Vaya BRT development, while others have shown no knowledge of the programme or even noted that “the Corridors of Freedom is something hidden, something not known” (interview with Charles Gininda, 22 July 2016). Results

MARLBORO SOUTH

he Better Buildings Programme is not without its own set of contestations. See Rubin (2014) for a T discussion the benefits and drawbacks of the programme.

MARLBORO SOUTH

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Inequality in the built fabric of a city cannot be changed quickly and altering existing patterns of living and networks of interdependency is a long and complex process. This is particularly true in a place like South Africa, where several decades ago racial discrimination was codified in law. The COF project, attuned to this fact, strives to be more than just an infrastructure project. Together with supporting policies and spatial frameworks, it envisions reshaping the city for a more just future. As such, the implications for the corridors as they pass areas of historic marginalisation and vulnerable populations become significant, not just for increasing sustainable and dense spatial development, but for the everyday narratives of residents in this area. Alexandra township is truly unique in that it defied the efforts of apartheid spatial planning for decades, and Marlboro South presents a unique opportunity to set targets addressing poverty and inequality on an achievable scale that will not require relocations or major disruptions of lives and livelihoods. Equitable access for residents of all backgrounds must be the emphasis of the Corridors project, not facilities for consumption and private profit. As discussed in the previous sections on economic and social conditions, several issues regarding the change likely to impact the underprivileged in the Marlboro South and greater Alexandra area are of particular concern. The first is changing land values, which could potentially displace the poor. Developer proposals such as Alex City assert that the proposed 30 800 housing units would be able to accommodate all of Marlboro South’s current residents, as well as the Stjwetla informal settlement along the banks of the Jukskei River’s floodplain. However, development currently taking place in Marlboro South reveals that both developer and state initiatives are not coordinated with residents or businesses, and contestation and protests around these actions have occurred (for example with the GAAH). A wider implication of these phenomena in Marlboro South – considering that an average of 1% of stakeholders were even aware of the COF project at all – is that the vision for the corridors has not been adequately communicated to local stakeholders, precluding them from adopting the vision themselves. The political nature of the corridors is emblematic of the failure to communicate with people about the issues that will impact their everyday lives. Furthermore, investigating Marlboro South as a case study has revealed several key points that will be essential for the future-oriented institutions at the City and the Gauteng Province. This analysis supports:

MARLBORO SOUTH

• Cross-institutional communication and research as currently conducted at the City and provincial level, as well as collaborations with partners outside the administration (universities, specifically harnessing the energy of students). • Continued focus on contextual scale of development and provision of infrastructure rather than housing, as “housing is not a problem we’re going to solve; it’s an opportunity that will unfold if we create more sustainable livelihoods. Housing is not a piece of infrastructure…it is an organic process that occurs through options and choice” (interview with Monica Albonico, 18 August 2016). • Innovative land use policies to adapt to the norm of places that experience intense poverty, such as Alexandra and Marlboro South, and assistance to help people learn the tools to envision what they themselves want. • Monitoring development in respect to its potential impact on Alexandra and Marlboro South as areas of severe historic repression, for example, precinct plans and actual development investments will need to be very carefully monitored and livelihoods respected. • Most of all, the analysis supports processes that are truly inclusive of area stakeholders and vulnerable voices, not just the politically well-connected or elite urban actors.

MARLBORO SOUTH

Housing production policy, for example in Alexandra in the 1980s, has frequently attempted to target the poor and lower-middle class, turning them into homeowners and a so-called ‘aspirational middle class’. This phenomenon of creating a consumer class out of the poor ties into larger socio-economic problems of incorporating township economies, as well as addressing the socially precarious conditions that accompany long-term poverty and inequality. Development planning cannot simply commodify townships and displace poverty elsewhere. For precisely this reason, Marlboro South has the potential to act as a particularly valuable exercise in socially just processes and the development of an innovative architectural language to reflect the unique and storied histories of the area. To begin the process in Marlboro South, in alignment with the goals of the Corridors, several actions are recommended: • Continue existing lines of deep area-based research to unpack the subtleties of the social structure, in order to find the right groups to act as representative partners and catalysts for development. • Begin intervening in the four issues introduced in the above section as primary challenges: zoning, services, property ownership, and stakeholder interaction. • Move plans forward with certainty towards strategies, due to the cultural history of the area founded in repression. • Coordinate between levels of government so that the deviations between the Province, City, and precincts that impeded inclusive planning in the 2000s are not repeated in the Corridors, and ensure that developers are required to implement the goals that are carefully outlined on each level of spatial frameworks.

available City documents (for example, CoJ 2015a; 2015b; 2014) and qualitative interviews, it seems that while there are plans for economic development, plans for social development do not yet exist. Furthermore, although Marlboro South naturally unfolds north to south as it approaches Alexandra – and possesses and independent identity according to most of the businesses and residents interviewed – only half of the area is part of current COF plans. What does this mean for the properties and households of those excluded? Will these stakeholders also be consulted in the future, or will participation in development planning remain restricted to those within the zone and powerful political actors in the area? This requires careful reflection not only on spatial planning, but on what sort of development addresses the greater good of the GCR. The City’s most recent SDF echoes these sentiments (CoJ 2016: 120): Development of liveable neighbourhoods with good social amenities and community facilities will form the support base for local economic development. Affordable connectivity options to major work centres within Johannesburg and in neighbouring municipalities are also vital. Whether or not the COF can create new spaces, in which development can utilise the potentials of the unique areas, depends on enforcing these principles. A sociotechnical solution alone cannot generate change, but settlements that focus on human development have the long-term potential to develop an area from within. Particularly in historically underprivileged precincts such as Marlboro South, the corridors could be used to promote the kind of access, inclusivity and development that begins to address the legacy of the apartheid socio‑spatial system.

The four key challenges and recommendations mentioned above potentially represent significant opportunities. Through rezoning, if Marlboro were to be designated a mixed-use area, disputes surrounding service delivery could be gradually addressed and the density of the built environment significantly increased. Assessment of the ownership structure of the stands and participatory planning with current businesses and residents could lead to the delivery of housing alternatives and community facilities, improving liveability for these actors. Based on the review of

MARLBORO SOUTH

REFERENCES Alex City (2016) “PowerPoint presentation on the Alex City Development” (January 2016). Albonico Sack Metacity (ASM) (2016) “Alexandra Urban Development Framework: City of Johannesburg Planning Department Progress Report” PowerPoint presentation (20 May 2016). Bénit-Gbaffou C (ed.) (2013) Community Activists Tell Their Story: Driving Change in Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni. Centre for Urbanism and Built Environment Studies (CUBES) and South African Research Chair in Development Planning and Modelling, Wits University. Bonner P and Nieftagodien N (2008) Alexandra. A History. Johannesburg: Wits University Press. Butler M (2016) “Meet ward 109 candidate” Sandton Chronicle (21 June 2016). Available at http:// sandtonchronicle.co.za/156086/theward-that-has-it-all City Power (2015) “Corridors of Freedom: City Power Transmission and Distribution Network Planning” PowerPoint presentation (20 October 2015). CoJ (2007) Region E: Alexandra Renewal Project. Available at http://www. joburg.org.za/index.php?option=com_ content&id=177&limitstart=4 CoJ (2008) Marlboro Urban Development Framework. Prepared by Akanya Development Solutions and Karabo Consulting for the Department of Development Planning and Urban Management: Development Planning and Facilitation. CoJ (2010) Consolidated Johannesburg Town Planning Scheme of 2010. Available at http://www.joburgarchive.co.za/2010/pdfs/town_ planning_ 2010.pdf CoJ (2011) Joburg 2040: Growth and Development Strategy, Johannesburg. City of Johannesburg Central Strategy Unit.

MARLBORO SOUTH

CoJ (2014) Corridors of Freedom: Bringing Corridors to Life. Plan of Action. CoJ (2014a) Strategic Area Framework for the Louis Botha Avenue Development Corridor. CoJ (2015) Economic Development Strategy for the City of Johannesburg. Department of Economic Development (DED). Available at http://www. joburg.org.za/images/stories/2016/ Jan/Pdf/CoJ%20SITPF.pdf CoJ (2015a) “Corridors of Freedom: Strategic Area Frameworks” PowerPoint presentation (5 June 2015). CoJ (2015b) “Corridors of Freedom Action Implementation Plans” (31 August 2015). CoJ (2016) Spatial Development Framework Review Draft 2015/16. Department of City Transformation and Spatial Planning. Firth A (2011) “Statistics South Africa National Census 2011” Population statistics obtained from the Census 2011 Community Profile Databases and geographical areas calculated from the Census 2011 GIS DVD. Available at http://census2011. adrianfrith.com/place/798013043 GCRO (Gauteng City-Region Observatory) (2009) Quality of Life Survey 2009. Data points collected in Marlboro South. GCRO (Gauteng City-Region Observatory) (2016) “Quality of Life in the GCR: Quality of Life Survey 2015” Presentation from launch (28 June 2016). Gqiba F F (1992) Urban Crisis and the Apartheid State Response: South African Housing Policy in the 1980s. PhD thesis, University College London. Harrison P, Todes A and Watson V (2008) Planning and Transformation. Lessons from the Post-Apartheid Experience. London: Routledge. Howe L B and Joos V (2012) PostApartheid Urbanism. Master’s thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich.

Howe L B (2016) “Information as Contestation: The Digital Realm as a Platform for Underprivileged Communities” Association of American Geographers Conference (San Francisco, 29 March – 2 April 2016). Joburg News (2016) “Bua La Sechaba unveils Alex development projects” (15 June 2016). Knight R (1990) “Sanctions, Disinvestment, and U.S. Corporations in South Africa” in R E Edgar (ed.) Sanctioning Apartheid. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. Le Cordeur M (2015) “New mega city for Gauteng” Fin24 (7 May 2015). Available at http://www.fin24.com/ Economy/Gauteng-launches-firstever-post-apartheid-city-20150506 Manala L (2015) “Blikkies Dorp comes to Alex” Alex News (15 July 2015). Available at http://alexnews. co.za/52698/relocation-of-residentsto-corrugated-iron-huts-aborted News24 (2005) “Marlboro: Police on High Alert” (3 August 2005). Available at http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/ News/Malboro-Police-on-highalert-20050803 Outsourced Insight (2016) “Assessing Existing Social and Economic Conditions in the Corridors of Freedom” (15 July 2016). Roefs M, Naidoo V, Meyer M and Makalela J (2003) “Alexandra: A Case Study of Urban Renewal for the Presidential 10 Year Review Project” Review by the Human Sciences Research Council(Democracy and Governance Programme) in association with Indlovo Link. Rubin M (2014) “Johannesburg’s Bad Buildings Programme: The World Class City Hegemony at Work?” in C Haferburg and M Huchzermeyer (eds.) Urban Governance in Post-apartheid Cities: Modes of Engagement in South Africa’s Metropole. Durban: UKZN Press. Sandton Town Planning Scheme, 1980. Notice 606 (25 May 1980).

Sinwell L (2010) “The Alexandra Development Forum (ADF): The Tyranny of Invited Participatory Spaces?” Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa 74(1), pp. 23-46. Stats SA (Statistics South Africa) (2011) Statistical Release Census 2011. Available at http://www.statssa. gov.za/publications/P03014/ P030142011.pdf

Stats SA (Statistics South Africa) (2016) Quarterly Labour Force Survey Quarter 1: 2016. Available at http://www. statssa.gov.za/publications/P0211/ P02111stQuarter2016.pdf Todes A (2012) “Urban Growth and Strategic Spatial Planning in Johannesburg, South Africa” Cities 29(9) pp. 158-165.

Todes A, Charlton S, Rubin M, Appelbaum A and Harrison P (2016) “Spatial Futures: Aspirations and Actions Regarding Form and Spatial Change in Johannesburg” Report for Group Strategy, Policy Coordination and Relations, City of Johannesburg.

Interviews Albonico, Monica. Founder of Albonico Sack Metacity Architects and Urban Design. Interview with author (Johannesburg, 18 August 2016). Aquadro, Darryl. Former Siemens Employee. Interview with author (Parkview, 15 July and 12 August 2016). Bennett, Jhono. Founder of 1:1 Agency of Engagement. Interview with author (Johannesburg, 24 August 2016). Bidla, Andiswa. Department of Land Use Management, City of Johannesburg. Interview with author (Johannesburg, 16 August 2016). Boberg, David. Department of Land Use Management, City of Johannesburg. Interview with author (Johannesburg, 16 August 2016). Delborg, Mark. Manager of Springbok Scaffolding, Marlboro South. Interview with author (Johannesburg, 23 July 2016). Francisco, Deborah. Councillor for Ward 108, Marlboro South. Telephone interview (22 July and 9 August 2016). Fuchs, Alan. Former DA Councillor for Ward 109. Interview with author (Killarney, 18 August 2016). Gininda, Bongi. Resident of Marlboro South warehouse. Interview with author (July 2016). Gininda, Charles. Spokesperson for Marlboro Warehouse Crisis Committee and member of SDI/ISN. Interview with author (various between 2011 and 2016).

Gininda, Pamela. Resident of Marlboro South warehouse. Interview with author (July and August 2016). Gininda, Thulisile. Resident of Marlboro South warehouse. Interview with author (July and August 2016). Gino. Grocer/importing business owner in Marlboro South. Interview with author (23 July 2016). Khumalo, Richard. Resident of Rashuma Village informal settlement in Marlboro South. Interview with author (12 August 2016).

Seeco, Louis. Advertising agent and owner of Neh! Nightclub in arlboro South. Interview with author (12 August 2016). Thabang. ANC Youth League local leader in Ward 108, Marlboro South. Interview with author (11 August 2016). Xakaza, Themba. Project lead at Inkanyeli Developers Telephone and personal follow-up interview with author (Johannesburg, 23 and 31 August 2016).

Letter, Neels. Director of the Alexandra Renewal Project. Interview with author (17 August 2016). Masuku, Ayanda. Strategic Urban Planner for Region E, Department of Spatial Planning and City Transformation, City of Johannesburg. Interview with author (16 August 2016). Mnukwa, Akhona. Development Manager: Johannesburg Development Agency. Interview with author (18 August 2016). Monjani, Lucia. Spaza shop owner in Marlboro South. Interview with author (12 August 2016). Mopasi, Thabo. Alexandra resident and Alexandra Heritage Centre community activist. Conversations with author (July 2015 and August 2016.). Mumford, Keith. MegaCandy factory manager in Marlboro South. Interview with author (23 July 2016). Ntshangase, Jabulani. Spokesperson for the Alexandra Taxi Association in Marlboro Gardens. Interview with Lucky Nkali (25 August 2016).

MARLBORO SOUTH