Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

Op-eds

Op-eds

Average Capetonians can’t buy any of the 900+ new apartments on Atlantic Seaboard

Average Capetonians can’t buy any of the 900+ new apartments on Atlantic Seaboard
Catherine Stone, Isa-Lee Jacobson and Trevor Sacks
By Catherine Stone, Isa-Lee Jacobson and Trevor Sacks
28 Jul 2024
Facebook
11
Inclusionary housing is in the interests of social cohesion and justice. It’s even in the interests of businesses on Cape Town’s Atlantic Seaboard, offering a diverse, perennial customer base as opposed to a seasonal Airbnb population in otherwise-empty micro apartments.

In the last three years, 645 apartment units have been built on Cape Town’s Atlantic Seaboard, with 283 in the pipeline. Some of these units are just 21m2 in size, and sell for well over R1-million – none are affordable to an average person in the city.

The City of Cape Town has the power to transform housing on the Atlantic Seaboard, which sees an influx of thousands of workers, carers and learners every day. Instead, it’s giving free reign to developers. 

Inclusionary housing is one tool the City has that can begin to address affordable housing shortages and spatial injustices. It involves requiring private developers to set aside a portion of the units in a new building for affordable housing – available for rental or purchase for less than the market would allow.

The Western Cape Provincial Government has approved an Inclusionary Housing Policy, but the City of Cape Town has neglected to develop one of its own (Stellenbosch, by way of example, has implemented a policy, based largely on the province’s). 

Despite a real need to address historical spatial injustices, as well as present-day concerns about the social fabric of neighbourhoods, and despite the City having the policy tools available to bring about positive social change, developers are shaping neighbourhoods to suit their bottom line.

Landowners and developers are making the most of demand for properties on the Atlantic Seaboard from investors looking to profit from short-term rentals, as well as new residents who want cosmopolitan, walkable neighbourhoods close to the sea. They also benefit from generous land-use rights granted to the area which allow them to build multiple storeys without rezoning, saving them much time and money – one of the main reasons for the boom we are seeing.  

Properties have grown in value, thanks in small part to interventions by private landowners, but mostly thanks to public investment – in the MyCiti bus service, access to the Promenade, free extra land-use rights  and reduced parking requirements. Collective investment by the Seaboard community in safety and cleanliness, through the CIDs for example, also adds value. Since so much of the value of Seaboard properties is socially created, it’s only reasonable that it should be shared. 

Inclusionary housing is hardly radical, with many cities like Vienna, Singapore, Copenhagen, Portland and Melbourne having successfully applied inclusionary housing policies with no ill effects. Besides some dogmatic ideological reasons, it’s hard to know why the City has been prevaricating for closing in on 10 years on inclusionary housing when reliable data shows clear benefits.

It’s possible they’re wary of political backlash from residents who have fears about transforming their neighbourhoods. Myths about affordable housing cause resistance, so it’s worthwhile busting a few. 

Myth #1: It makes neighbourhoods less safe


Inclusionary housing is for people who are regularly employed – the domestic workers, nurses, cashiers and cooks who already spend their days on the Atlantic Seaboard. It’s aimed at households earning up to a maximum of about R30,000 a month – those who are able to pay a bond or rent. The nurse who cares for our elderly residents, the nanny who looks after our children, the shop assistant who sells us our pet food – these are people Seaboard residents already interact with every day.

Inclusionary housing is both just and mutually beneficial, since new residents would live close to work and school, and current residents would have nurses, carers, nannies and shop assistants who aren’t exhausted by long commutes and who arrive safely and on time. 

Myth #2: Affordable housing will bring down property values


A South African study conducted on the impact of a social housing project (affordable rental housing) on property sales in the same neighbourhood, before and after development, showed no impact whatsoever. The City of Cape Town’s own valuations data, before and after completion of several social housing projects, also shows no impact whatsoever. This is supported by a review of 62 US studies that prove a positive or neutral effect on surrounding properties in 90% of cases.  

Myth #3: We don’t need policy – with so much new housing stock coming into the market, property prices will come down anyway


This is called “filtering”. The principle may be correct, but doesn’t bear out in reality, and is very neighbourhood-specific. On the Atlantic Seaboard, new stock is replacing family units (two- and three-bedroom homes) with mostly studios or one-bedroom units. The result is that there are fewer family-sized apartments and houses, and these are now more expensive. More affordable stock may be coming into the market, but in the form of micro units, and at the expense of units suitable and affordable for local families.  

Inclusionary housing is in the interests of social cohesion and justice. It’s even in the interests of businesses on the Seaboard, offering a diverse, perennial customer base (as opposed to a seasonal Airbnb population in otherwise-empty micro apartments).

Even so, it’s not enough. Given the extraordinary boom in the development of expensive properties in the Atlantic Seaboard (measured in rands per square metre, whatever the size), and the moral obligation on the state to pursue spatial transformation, all spheres of government should be doing all they can with land they own to balance this with affordable stock.

Municipal, provincial and national government all control properties on the Seaboard, including the Tafelberg site and SABC land, and each has delayed, backpedalled or actively obstructed transformation. Social housing and inclusionary housing are tools to create fairer housing conditions, used by governments around the world – but not ours. 

But when it comes to inclusionary housing, this is something City officials could have implemented long before the Seaboard’s building boom. This points to a lack of commitment or worse, an ideological objection, to transforming neighbourhoods. Clearly it’s not something the market can achieve on its own, or it would have done so, in the 30 years since the end of apartheid.

It must be said that some developers are not unwilling to get on board with inclusionary housing, and some have even tried. But they need policy certainty, which only the City can provide. The technical work is there, the research is there, and the need is clearly there – the leadership is absent. 

In response to these failures, YIMBY Seaboard aims to press for urgent changes to housing policy because we believe that the current situation is unsustainable. YIMBYism (replacing the “not” in “not in my backyard” with a “yes”) is a worldwide movement that recognises that it’s going to take residents, housing activists, commuters and allies to bring about the changes that are needed in environments that are purely market driven.

Ultimately, this is for the greater good of Cape Town, where we would all benefit from living in inclusive spaces and moving towards a society that is diverse, just and integrated. DM 

Catherine Stone, Isa-Lee Jacobson and Trevor Sacks are members of YIMBY Seaboard, which advocates for affordable housing in the high-density suburbs along Cape Town’s Atlantic Seaboard.

Categories:

Tags: