Inclusivity insights: two urban development projects in Johannesburg

Abstract

Johannesburg, which is South Africa’s largest city and economic center, is still influenced by patterns of inequality of the past. Although spatial transformation has been rapid since 1994, spatial divisions along class lines are still prevalent long after the apartheid era. This is despite the fact that societal values such as inclusivity, spatial justice and equal access to resources have become the core goals of Johannesburg’s spatial and urban development. This is particularly true when addressing housing, public open spaces, transport and social infrastructure embedded in a suitable land-use mix. However, despite the adoption of numerous policies by government, this research indicates that even recent urban development projects such as Fleurhof and Waterfall are falling short in delivering those objectives. Based on a case study analysis, we show that significant dysfunctionalities become evident when evaluating these two projects, despite their meeting relevant indicators of spatial inclusion on paper. Tensions are identified between theoretical approaches and the implementation of societally relevant policy goals. These include inclusivity and spatial justice by mostly privatized provision of housing and services, and deficiencies in public maintenance of infrastructure. The research reveals, that ‘ticking-the-boxes’ behavior on policy and project level does not produce equitable, inclusive neighborhoods and urban spatial patterns, but rather reproduces spatial inequalities of the past. If these policies are to result in real spatial change and improvement in the lives of Johannesburg residents, a more proactive approach by the public sector at different levels will be necessary.

Can Public Spaces Alleviate Poverty-Related Feelings? Content Analysis of Vision 2030 and Egyptian Residents’ Storytelling

“…Another principle is access to public spaces for all groups of a local community regardless of gender, age, employment status, financial status, and physical disability [19,73,74]. Researchers used a variety of criteria to assess societal deprivation and inclusion, including satisfaction, standard of living [24], equal opportunities [75,76], promoting equity and equal access (publicly accessible) [19], accessibility and mobility [77], more accessible urban spaces [18,73], citizens' emotions, satisfaction, urban experience [78], and adequate distance to facilities [79].…”

“…Table 1 shows the four elements of the SDUD index with the relevant references. Equal opportunities [75] Promoting equity Equal access (publicly accessible) [19,74] Accessibility and mobility [77] More accessible [73] Community well-being…”

Unlocking Land for Urban Agriculture: Lessons from Marginalised Areas in Johannesburg, South Africa

“…However, due to weak implementation mechanisms, there have been few success stories [20]. A nodal review for the City of Johannesburg outlined the need to address the inequities and disadvantages intrinsic to living in marginalised areas [21,22]. To build on such efforts, several scholars have outlined to achieve this political mandate, strategic planning approaches need to ensure sustainable development in marginalised areas [23,24].…”

Transit-oriented development, development corridors and economic access: The Louis Botha development corridor’s impact

“…As such, Coloured, Black, and Indian inhabitants were restricted to residing in overpopulated and under-serviced townships on the far outskirts of cities (Geyer & Du Plessis, 2013: 39). While effort has been exerted since 1994 to mend South Africa as a whole, the country is still the face of fragmentation (Hofer et al, 2021(Hofer et al, : 1855. The essence of apartheid planning lingers in South Africa's urban spatial patterns, manifesting in spatial inequality, fragmentation, and urban sprawl (Dewar, 2017: 28).…”