United Nations Public Service Awards Case Studies

In 1994, South Africa’s new, democratic government inherited a housing dilemma that was confusing and complex. Apartheid had contributed to the housing crisis in three major ways: administrative bodies were often incompetent and uncoordinated; de-urbanisation policies left a dire shortage of housing for black South Africans in urban areas; and the Group Areas Act of 1950 resulted in the removal and resettlement of non-whites into urban ghettos on the outskirts of towns and cities which, although the laws were abolished later on, became a de facto reality of South African urbanization. Since 1994, government has developed numerous housing policies, many of which have proven inadequate and ineffective.

A typical government housing project involves relocating a group of residents to temporary accommodation, demolishing existing shacks and replacing them with starter houses. In the process settlements are ‘de-densified’ on the basis of one plot, one structure, one household. This approach contributes to urban sprawl, decreases the available residential space, and disrupts social relations. In addition, nearly all low-cost housing projects have been and continue to be, in peripheral locations, perpetuating the segregated urban form of the apartheid government.

In Port Elizabeth (PE), Eastern Cape, most new housing projects are located on open land to the north and on the outskirts of existing townships. Walmer is a posh, white suburb located near the Port Elizabeth airport. Gqebera is a township just outside of Walmer and adjacent to it is the Sakhasonke Housing Village. Sakhasonke was created much to the benefit of domestic workers. Far away townships were particularly problematic for women workers who face long travel times along with the double burden of their jobs and raising children/housework. In PE, a domestic worker has to commute with 3 taxis from Motherwell (township) at a cost of R15 per day, a lot for a low-earning domestic worker.

The Sakhasonke Housing Village Initiative follows the Missionvale higher-density housing pilot project which was initiated by the GMSAF in 1998, also near Port Elizabeth. Missionvale made clear that it was possible to work within subsidy constraints to create high-density housing. Some of the problems faced in Missionvale include: stolen building materials, quality control, a lack of social cohesion and trust, and poor home maintenance. The buildings in Missionvale are not being maintained and the area is declining into a slum. Over 100 of the original Missionvale beneficiaries have sold their properties on the black market for as little as R1,500. Project managers admit that one of the biggest mistakes made in Missionvale was that it targeting only the poorest of the poor. Without food-security, people will sell their subsidy home on the black market to whomever (including those who intend to set up drug houses, shebeens or brothels), thus negating the intended benefit of the project.

What is the initiative about? (the solution)
Sakhasonke is a walled village with a single access road, closely resembling a townhouse complex. Inside are two cul-de-sac streets and communal parking areas. There are 337 semi-detached, double-storey units that can house up to 1685 people. Most units are grouped as duplexes or triplexes. There are 20 green squares inside the village, each with a central tree and public seating. The pedestrian design of the village makes it safe for people to socialize and children to play outside. Each unit consists of a 23m2 ground floor containing a kitchen, bathroom with a shower base and toilet and a living area. Upstairs is an open-plan sleeping area, accessed via a timber staircase, which can be partitioned into two bedrooms. The internal finish is bagged and painted concrete block work and each unit has an insulated ceiling. Full services are provided to each unit including water, sewerage and electricity. Each unit has an electrical distribution board and a prepaid meter box with three plug sockets and a central room light. Sakhasonke Village is a People’s Housing Process (PHP) project aimed at the poorest members of the Port Elizabeth community (those earning less than R1,500 per month). About 60% of beneficiaries work as domestics in Walmer, 20% are baggage handlers at the airport, work on stud farms or in the service industry in Walmer and about 20% are unemployed. Residents of Sakhasonke were given full title deed to their new homes, which are worth about R40,000-50,000 each (based on offers made in 2006). Many of the beneficiaries work in Walmer and had previously lived in outlying areas. Living in Sakhasonke allows them to walk to work and save on transport cost. For HIV/AIDS patients, the ARV clinic is within walking distance. The Sakhasonke Village Initiative also involves a number of social programmes. Urban Services Group conducts workshops with residents in: homeowner responsibilities including municipal rates, home improvements, municipal indigent policy on free water and electricity, HIV/AIDS, gardening and green issues. They also provide marriage-counselling, a community crèche and day-care, and alcohol and drug abuse awareness. These services are coupled with initiatives of the Residents’ Committee including community policing, various income generation projects (a sewing project, a food garden, a recycling project), among other social activities. The food garden is a registered cooperative, managed by Sakhasonke residents. So far, 20,000 vegetable seedlings have been planted including spinach, beetroot, onion and lettuce. The vegetables are sold to the villagers. AIDS patients get free food parcels from the food garden and so does the crèche. A number of Sakhasonke’s beneficiaries participated in a 7-week course in various aspects of construction at the Eastern Cape Training Centre and were redeployed to Sakhasonke as contractors. The Sakhasonke Housing Initiative created temporary employment for some 90 people (mainly from the adjacent township, Gqebera) who worked as contractors at the building site.

Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
The Sakhasonke Village Housing Initiative was initiated in 2002 by the General Motors South Africa Foundation (GMSAF) who provided bridging finance to purchase land. The Walmer Housing Development Trust acts as the Development Agent and is made up of the Ward Councillor for the area, a senior official from the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality (NMMM), the general manager of the GMSAF, an ANC Councillor, the secretary to the Ward Councillor and the principal of the Walmer High School. Metroplan planned and coordinated the project under the direction of Lance Del Monte. The Department of Local Government and Housing provided government representation and subsidies. The NMMM offered a councillor and official representation within municipal government to the project. The Department of Social Welfare provided access to social grants and food parcels. Urban Services Group (USG) was the coordinating agency for all social activities. Other agencies involved in integrated community support activities include: FAMSA, Alcoholics Anonymous, Maranatha Mission, St. John’s Ambulance, St. Francis Hospice, the Wildlife Society, and the Malabar Educare Centre. The NMMM supplied the workshops in home ownership, financial responsibilities etc. through USG. Peter Kitshoff, a local nursery man, gave training to 25 villagers in gardening. The construction was undertaken by 15 teams of local labour under the management of emergent contractors who were supervised by a building manager and quality controller from the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University’s Institute of Building Research and Support. Potential residents received notice of the project through flyers within the Walmer area followed by a series of general meetings to inform people of the proposal and gain interest. Urban Services Group, together with Metroplan, facilitated the selection of the beneficiaries for submission to the Provincial authorities for approval.

Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
a. What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
The Sakhasonke Village Housing Initiative follows the Missionvale higher-density housing pilot project, initiated by the GMSAF in 1998. Lessons learned through the Missionvale housing development experience were blended with new policies and put into practice with Sakhasonke. The project demonstrates the principles and benefits of City Re-integration and Residential Densification which is a part of a large number of national policies but rarely applied in low-cost housing schemes. Whereas conventional low-density housing projects would only have 126 units on the same land area, Sakhasonke’s medium-density housing allows for 337 units. This kind of housing development reduces urban sprawl thereby preserving agricultural land, biodiversity, etc. The total housing density of Sakhasonke Village is 76 units per hectare. The project demonstrates a dramatic departure from the way in which low cost housing is being delivered to the poorest of the poor. The Walmer area was identified for the project because of the great need for housing in the area as well as the high level of interest shown by employers of domestic workers in housing for their employees. The Sakhasonke initiative also sought to address issues of spatial segregation and inequities by choosing a location close to the city centre as opposed to the outskirts to reduce transport time and cost for people who worked in the city and increase beneficiaries’ proximity to amenities and services. The existence of vandalized buildings on site, previously an ablution block for the old Caravan Park, enabled the economical development of a Community Centre using the Establishment Grant provided by government. Initially, this structure served as a secure materials storage space and site office, and proved invaluable during implementation. During construction, supervisors used an innovative clip card system to ensure that building materials were not stolen. The house type used at Sakhasonke was developed by looking for the optimal way of creating maximum possible floor space relative to cost. This was achieved by using building materials in their most standard, un-customised form to minimize waste, and by grouping units as duplexes or triplexes to benefit from the cost savings of shared walls and shared services. Sakhasonke’s village design—houses that face each other, public green spaces etc.—encourages social interaction. The integration of social programmes was critical to promoting social cohesion, without which a project like Sakhasonke can quickly become another city ghetto. In addition, the selection of beneficiaries sought to facilitate the right mix of unemployed people with some prospect of finding a job and those who had a record of a small though steady income in order to avoid a repetition of Missionvale.

b. What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
The planning stages of the Sakhasonke Village Housing Initiative took place in 2000 and 2001. This involved architectural and urban planning for the village, land acquisition, and obtaining authorization from various authorities for items such as municipal services infrastructure. The construction of services (water and electricity infrastructure, sewers, drainage etc.) began in 2002. Beneficiary selection took place between 2001 and 2002. During this time, prospective beneficiaries were able to see a model of the village to ensure that they knew exactly what they would receive should they be selected. Throughout the selection process, during and after construction Urban Services Group (USG) conducted a number of workshops on home ownership responsibilities. USG also conducted means tests and facilitated beneficiary approval by government. In 2003, the Walmer Housing Development Trust (WHDT) was established. The WDHT then appointed Mr. Lance Del Monte of Metroplan to fulfil the role of Project Coordinator. In 2004, beneficiaries elected a Residents’ Committee. Construction was completed in early 2006. USG is currently in the process of exiting the project, leaving beneficiaries responsible for the management of their own social programmes.

c. What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
This project encountered 3 main obstacles. The first was political interference. Mention of the housing crisis in South Africa causes emotions to run high, and is an issue that is highly politicized. In this case two rival factions, the South African Communist Party and the African National Congress attempted to use Sakhasonke as a political weapon one against the other. This slowed down the progress of obtaining government approvals for municipal services. Councillor Dediza, a municipal councillor at the time, dedicated her time to supporting this project and successfully mediated political battles so as to allow Sakhasonke project management to move forward with construction. During the construction of the village, the builders discovered rock in the ground. This cost them extra time because they had to find a tender to blast it. Fortunately, they were able to find a good tender at a low cost. Finally, the construction took place during a ‘building boom’ in the Port Elizabeth area. As a result, many of the original contractors left Sakhasonke for bigger contracts elsewhere. To overcome this obstacle, Sakhasonke recruited labour continuously from the adjacent township and began to offer bigger contracts to fewer people instead of small contracts to a large number of people. This helped them to retain labour. The site supervisor and former caretaker of the Caravan Park (previously on the land used for Sakhasonke), Marlene Nortman, was a huge asset to Sakhasonke because of her ability to motivate labourers, and her organizational skills.

d. What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
GMSAF purchased the 4.4 hectares of land with bridging finance from an insolvent estate for a modest sum of R130,000. GMSAF later recovered these funds from the housing subsidy. The 337 units stand on a freehold plot of ±80m2. Excluding walkways, public squares and other communal areas, the unit price for the land per plot came to R219. The overall expenditure was less than R10.5 million. All 337 households qualified for the full basic subsidy of R23,100, and a Locational Allowance of R1,279 as the density of the project exceeded 40 units/hectare, plus a Geotechnical Allowance of R2,558, and the Southern Cape Coast Condensation Allowance of R3,900 for a total of R30,837 in subsidies. In terms of human resources, the construction of Sakhasonke required the work of about 90 people. About 15 people were employed to offer social programmes and workshops. The project had about 10 administrative staff. Sakhasonke’s vegetable garden was financed by the Premier’s Discretionary Fund for R140,000. Peter Kitshoff donated his time to training 25 villagers in gardening techniques.

Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
The initiative is sustainable. Since the construction of the village is complete, no further funding is necessary. Residents are responsible for the maintenance of their homes and will soon have full ownership of all of their social programmes (USG is in the process of exiting this project). Social programmes, Sakhasonke’s designe which encourages social interaction, contribute to the sustainability of the initiative by promoting social cohesion and building a community that supports its members in difficult times. The institutional framework that will ensure effective community ownership are already in place. A Residents’ Committee of ten publicly elected members was established in 2004. The Residents’ Committee devised a series of House Rules for the village. These include: prohibiting the erection of shacks, requiring residents to maintain their homes and replace broken windows and doors, prohibiting shebeens, prohibiting rentals, and informing your neighbours if you are going to have a party, among others. The Rules are enforced by committee members. There are sub-committees, including a gardening committee, HIV/AIDS committee, and a women’s forum. Of their own volition, residents have coordinated nightly neighbourhood patrols and crime rates are extremely low, despite the village’s proximity to Gqebera township’s shacks, just on the other side of the walls. The initiative is transferable. It is a low-cost project that was implemented within the South African government’s subsidy constraints and acceptable staffing norms. Therefore, it is a model that can easily be implemented by other agencies (government and non-government) within current subsidy parameters across the country. The Provincial Government (Eastern Cape) has bought into the concept and would like to approve another project like this one. Visitors from across the country have been invited to visit Sakhasonke Village in order to promote the higher density housing model as a component of the solution to country’s housing crisis. Sakhasonke received an Impumelelo Award of R50,000 for innovation in 2006/07. The money will go toward promoting Sakhasonke as a model worthy of replication and disseminating information about the project.

What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
The biggest key to success for the Sakhasonke Village Housing Initiative was that it considered the lessons learned from the Missionvale Housing project at all stages of implementation; from selecting the right beneficiaries, and developing a materials tracking system that deterred theft, to creating a unique design that encourages social interaction but still allows each family its personal space. Care was taken to ensure that the initiative was as cost-effective as possible. Using land from an insolvent estate, grouping homes as duplexes and triplexes, and using standard sizes so as to avoid the need for customization all resulted in considerable cost-savings to the project. Remaining within the funding parameters of housing subsidies made the Sakhasonke initiative successful because it did not have to go through the trouble of finding corporate sponsors or international donors. Effectively establishing community buy-in was critical to the success of the initiative. This was achieved firstly by providing prospective beneficiaries with accurate information. Oftentimes beneficiaries’ expectations are too high, resulting in disappointment and sometimes feelings of distrust in the project’s facilitators. Sakhasonke’s project management made sure that beneficiaries understood what the end product would look like using a miniature replica of the village. They also informed beneficiaries as to what their responsibilities would be as homeowners including paying municipal rates, maintaining their homes etc. Many of the beneficiaries participated in the actual construction of the village, which helped to create a sense of ownership. In addition, social programmes, introduced by Urban Services Group but taken over later on by the residents themselves, helped to build relationships between residents and served as a platform for them to empower themselves by their own cooperative initiatives (e.g. food garden, HIV/AIDS support, crèche etc.). Finally, Lance Del Monte of Metroplan rates the time and money that many beneficiaries now save on transport as one of Sakhasonke’s major successes. One woman’s story highlights this achievement: Khanyiswa Madolwana used to live in Motherwell, an informal settlement in Port Elizabeth and has been working in Walmer as a domestic for 20 years. To be on time for her job at 7:30, she had to leave home at 5:00. Of her monthly salary (R900), she used to spend R315 on transport alone. Since moving into the Sakhasonke Housing Village, she has been able to walk to work. She can leave at 7:00 and get home by 17:00, giving her more time and money to allocate to her own family.


Institution Name:		Walmer Housing Development Trust
Institution Type:		Public-Private Partnership
Contact Person:		Lance Del Monte
Title:		Project Coordinator
Telephone/ Fax:		+27-041-373-1843
Institution's / Project's Website:		+27-041-373-1838
E-mail:		lance@mplan.co.za
Address:		7 upper dickens street
Postal Code:		6006
City:		Port Elizabeth
State/Province:		Eastern Cape
Country:		South Africa

The Problem

Solution and Key Benefits

Actors and Stakeholders

(a) Strategies

(b) Implementation

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

(d) Use of Resources

Sustainability and Transferability

Lessons Learned

Contact Information