Backyard housing in Gauteng: An analysis of spatial dynamics
Yasmin Shapurjee, Alize le Roux & Maria Coetzee(†) 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Peer reviewed and revised Backyard housing1 – more often referred to as ‘backyard dwellings’ or Abstract ‘backyard shacks’ – is a form of small- This article examines the phenomenon of backyard housing in Gauteng, a prominent scale rental housing provided (mostly driver of urban spatial change in South Africa’s housing market. Backyard housing in informally) by private households in South Africa increasingly attracts the attention of policymakers because of the large number of households that this sector accommodates. Moreover, the role played exchange for payment in rent or in by backyard housing in the overall small-scale rental-housing sector is significant, kind (Crankshaw, Gilbert & Morris, particularly in Gauteng where a large proportion of households rent their primary 2000). Backyard housing is a critical dwelling. Drawing on quantitative geo-demographic data from GeoTerraImage (GTI) source of affordable rental housing (2010), Knowledge Factory’s Cluster Plus (2010) as well as StatsSA Census 2011, in South African cities and towns, this article documents the spatial footprint of backyard housing in Gauteng and which has been validated by research examines the implications of the findings for infrastructure service planning at the conducted in other developing cities municipal scale. on the rental housing’s prominent role in securing household livelihoods AGTERPLAASAKKOMMODASIE IN GAUTENG: ’N ANALISE VAN DIE (Crankshaw et al., 2000: 854-855; RUIMTELIKE DINAMIKA Kumar, 2001: 13; Watson & McCarthy, Hierdie artikel ondersoek die verskynsel van agterplaasakkomodasie in Gauteng, 1998: 53; Lemanski, 2009: 477‑478; een van die prominente oorsake van ruimtelike verandering in Suid-Afrika se Shapurjee & Charlton, 2013; SALGA, stedelike behuisingsmark. Agterplaasakkommodasie in Suid-Afrika trek al hoe 2013). Despite advocacy of affordable meer die aandag van beleidmakers weens die groot aantal huishoudings wat in rental-housing policy support die sektor geakkommodeer word. Bowendien speel agterplaasakkomodasie ’n baie belangrike rol in die algehele kleinskaalse huur-huismark, veral in Gauteng waar ’n internationally (Rakodi, 1995: 791; groot persentasie van huishousings hul primêre behuising uitverhuur. Deur gebruik Kumar, 2011: 699-671; UN-HABITAT, te maak van kwantitatiewe ruimtelike geo-demografiese data van GeoTerraImage 2003: 171-187, 2011: 23‑27) and (GTI) (2010), Knowledge Factory se Cluster Plus (2010) en StatistiekSA se Sensus locally (Watson, 1994: 35-41, 2009: 2011, dokumenteer hierdie artikel die ruimtelike voetspoor van agterplaasbehuising 23-25; Gardner, 2009:17-21), in Gauteng en bestudeer die implikasies van die bevindinge vir dienstebeplanning backyard housing and the informal op ’n munisipale skaal. rental-housing market more generally have mostly been overlooked in the MATLO A KA MORA JARETE GAUTENG: CHEBISISO YA DIPHAPANG South African national housing policy. TSE NGATA KA HARA MERERO YA DIBAKA TSE KHOLO Such a glaring disjuncture between Serapa sena se shebana le matlo a ka mora jarete Gauteng, e leng moqhubi a the demand/use of affordable rental moholo oa diphetoho tsa dibaka tse kholo ka hara thekiso ya matlo Afrika Borwa. housing and the limited state supply Matlo a ka mora jarete Afrika Borwa a phela a bitsa batho ba sebetsanang le ho theha and/or support (see Bank, 2007; maano hore ba sebetsane le ona hoba di jarete tse ngata di na l ona. Haholo holo, Lemanski, 2009; Shapurjee, 2010; matlo a ak mora jarete a bapala karolo e bohlokoa karolong ya matlo a hirisoang, haholo holo Gauteng moo beng ba jarete ba hirisang matlo a bona a maholo. Ho tsoa dipatlisisong tse tsoang Geo-Terra Image (GTO) (2010), Knowledge Factory’s 1 The term ‘backyard housing’ is used throughout Cluster Plus (2010) le statSA Census 2011, serapa sena se halisa dibaka tse kholo this article and is interchangeable with di amane le matlo a ka moha jarete Gauteng ebile se hlahlobisa ditla morao tsa ‘backyard accommodation’. Research on backyard housing has shown varying degrees dipatlisiso tsa merero ya dithulusi tsa ho ntlafatsa teropo ka hara masepala. of housing quality, ranging from rudimentary, ‘make-shift’ structures to larger, more orderly accommodation (see, for example, Gordon & Nel, 2006; Gardner, 2010; Shapurjee & Charlton, 2013). For this reason, an explicit choice was made to avoid using the term ‘backyard shack’, which has mainly negative connotations related to its ‘informality’, and which, research has shown (see Gordon & Nell, 2006: xiii; Shapurjee & Charlton, 2013: 659-660), does not represent the full spectrum of backyard housing typologies.
Ms Yasmin Shapurjee, Researcher, CSIR Built Environment, P.O. Box 395, Pretoria 0001, South Africa. Phone: (012) 841 2044, email:
Shapurjee & Charlton, 2013,) results settlements’ in this article). The result within Johannesburg’s Urban in planning and sometimes political of this unplanned infilling leads to Development Boundary – from 2007 contestations. Watson (2003) refers to “augmented informality” (Lemanski, to 2011. In 2012, statistics revealed these aptly as ‘conflicting rationalities’. 2009: 472) and contributes to the that backyard housing units in the complexities of housing provision and City comprised 270 000 units (City Lemanski (2009) argues that the management for poorer households of Johannesburg, 2012). In a context origin of backyard housing can reliant on the state (see Shapurjee, such as Johannesburg, which is be traced back to the late 1960s 2010; Shapurjee & Charlton, 2013 experiencing high levels of population when backyard housing became a for more recent commentary on and in-migration, the growth of popular choice, due to the halt in backyard dwellings is partly related to house construction for urban Black backyard housing in state-subsidised the demand for cheap rental housing. Africans as well as the prohibition low-income housing projects in Alexandra, Johannesburg). of informal settlements. Waves of Given the scale of Johannesburg’s urbanisation since the 1970s could The growth of backyard dwellings may informal housing challenge (close not be adequately controlled by the also be symptomatic of expanding to 190 informal settlements and apartheid government, resulting in housing demand in a context where expanding backyard-dwelling backyard housing units becoming state-subsidised housing delivery is numbers), appropriate shelter an even more popular choice in the too slow to meet the accommodation responses should no longer be aimed yards of formal properties in ‘planned’ needs of the urban poor (Morange, at replacing informal with formal. townships (see, for example, 2002: 6), despite the housing Rather, responses are required to Crankshaw et al., 2000: 845-853 subsidy programme having reached support households in-situ and to for a detailed historical account of significant milestones.3 On the extend housing tenures as the City Soweto’s backyards). other hand, the backyard housing acknowledges: Since the advent of democracy market has responded efficiently to While host to a significant in South Africa in 1994, backyard a housing crisis, absorbing demand variety of challenges, informal housing has continued to play by providing space to accommodate settlements also play a very those individuals or households more specific spatial function in the a fundamental role in absorbing city. They represent the means suited to rental accommodation,4 demand for low-income housing by which the most socially and as people flooded into urban areas while also providing an income for economically disconnected with high aspirations of securing an the landlords. These populations are queue for access. In this context, economic livelihood. Simultaneously, not uniform, however, and typically interventions such as the RDP comprise younger households, housing allocation system only the relaxation of influx controls address, at best, part of the single-headed households, migrants stimulated the development of problem. Given the scale of the ‘informal settlements’: concentrations and students (Gardner, 2009: 9). informally housed population, any of informal housing built illegally Since 2012, the City of medium-term shelter response (not conforming to by-laws) on must include very low cost rental Johannesburg, the largest (City of Johannesburg, 2011: 47). available pieces of land. Living metropolitan area in Gauteng (with conditions in these areas are an estimated population of 3.8 Thus, the effects of backyard infilling generally dire, with little access to million in 2014), has acknowledged can no longer be ignored because water, sanitation and electricity. the pervasive presence of backyard of the likely future spatial and While Lemanski (2009: 473) notes housing – and its relative growth land-use planning implications for the similarities between informal municipal infrastructure provision settlement dwellings and backyard refers to a detached or semi-detached and management. Overpopulation, house given freely to beneficiaries, with the housing, she also predicts the construction and servicing funded through unsanitary housing conditions, ‘perpetuation’ of backyard housing a state capital subsidy. The release of a disease burdens, the risk of fire because of its preferential access new wave of housing policy in 2004 dubbed and vulnerability to natural hazards ‘Breaking New Ground’ (BNG) (Department to urban services which tend to of Housing, 2004) orientates housing are just some of the challenges be lacking in informal settlements. delivery towards creating sustainable human facing municipalities. In some RDP Furthermore, Lemanski (2009: 480) settlements. Results are mixed, however, with settlements in Cape Town, for problems of distant location, low densities and raises the question of the ‘dichotomy’ few complementary facilities and amenities. example, the challenges of health between the government’s housing 3 The National Development Plan (2030: 242) burdens associated with increased policy objectives and its material estimates that over 3 million state-subsidised densification (added to generally poor outcomes, arguing that South housing units (including social rental housing) have been constructed since 1994. housing quality and management) Africa’s low-income housing policy’s 4 Households which prefer backyard housing are now evident (see Govender, emphasis on home ownership include those either unwilling or unable to Barnes & Pieper, 2011a: 340-342; may have inadvertently prompted access private formal housing for ownership 2011b: 35). Until a national policy the growth of backyard housing in (either provided by the State or by the private housing market). These households include framework on backyard dwellings state-subsidised low-income housing young couples, single-headed households, is devised, local municipalities will projects (referred to as ‘RDP2 students, same-sex couples, economically unfortunately bear the brunt of mobile households and households/individuals 2 After the ‘Reconstruction and Development who like the flexibility of backyard housing these challenges, and will need to Programme’ (in 1994). ‘RDP’ housing typically (see Gardner, 2009). seek effective and innovative ways 20 Shapurjee, Le Roux & Coetzee(†) • Backyard housing in Gauteng to manage urban growth in the component of the Department of realities and the corresponding ‘backyards’. Science and Technology (DST)- ‘sense-making’ by planners, sponsored Integrated Development researchers and geographers Owing to limited spatial analytical Planning and Modelling (IPDM) through processes of calculation, research of backyard housing areas Project in Johannesburg, the interrogation and finally introspection. at a provincial scale in South Africa project team became acutely (only recently has the Gauteng City Building on such research momentum aware of the growing magnitude Region Observatory [GCRO] released in advanced spatial analysis, this of backyard housing as a major a spatial data set on backyard study aims to profile the backyard urban structuring phenomenon post housing [see GCRO, 2013]) this housing ‘footprint’ in Gauteng. The 2007 (especially in Gauteng); this article positions itself as a quantitative reason for choosing Gauteng as a resulted in a decision to deepen the state-of-the-art review of backyard case study is based on evidence understanding of Gauteng’s backyard housing in Gauteng. Through the that the province hosts the dominant dwellings (first conducting spatial use of geo-referenced spatial data share of rental housing in the country 5 research on the Johannesburg Case provided by GTI from 2010, this study (Watson, 2009: 5), in which backyard Study – see Shapurjee, Le Roux & has three aims, namely: housing features strongly (see also Coetzee, 2012) by obtaining and Gauteng City Region Observatory 1. To document the ‘footprint’ (scale analysing spatial data7 published by and extent) of backyard housing [GCRO], 2013), and that future GeoTerraImage (GTI) in 2010. in Gauteng; growth of backyard housing stock is 2. To provide a detailed profile of The monitoring of informal housing predicted in the broader Gauteng City backyard housing ‘hotspots’ in and of informal settlements, more Region (GCR), alongside population Gauteng, and generally, is critical for planners and growth and rapid urbanisation. 3. To investigate the relationship municipal decision-makers, because Metropolitan municipalities now between backyard housing it allows both a spatial grounding agree that facilitating in situ service and socio-economic settlement of the status quo (the problems to provision in backyard housing areas trends. be addressed) as well as the vision is required urgently (Ahmad, 2012), and foresight to adopt strategies that while also finally acknowledging the 2. MOTIVATION FOR can affect change on the ground positive benefits of backyard housing THE STUDY and over time. The application of for landlords and tenants (Ahmad, remote sensing/high-resolution 2012). Furthermore, provincial Although substantial empirical work satellite imagery and Geographical Human Settlement Departments has been done on backyard housing Information Systems (GIS) to are re-invigorating their rental across settlement types in South monitor informal settlement (land- housing strategies, whilst placing African cities and towns (see recent use) patterns and growth are now policy focus on supporting small- studies by Gordon & Nell, 2006: 8; being applied widely in developing scale affordable rental housing of Lemanski, 2009: 475; Shapurjee & countries in cities such as Rio de which backyard accommodation Charlton, 2013), very few studies Janeiro, Brazil (Hofmann, Strobl, is the greatest supplier (see, for have attempted to document the Blaschke & Kux, 2008) Bangkok, spatial magnitude of backyard example, SALGA, 2013). Whilst a Thailand (Thomson, 2003), Delhi, housing, particularly in urban areas. revival of affordable rental housing India (Baud, Kuffer, Pfeffer, Sliuzas The formation of backyard dwellings, policy in some metropolitan areas which are privately provided, self- & Karuppannan, 2010), Cairo, is commended, these municipalities funded, self-built and, to a large Egypt (Bullard, 2006), Cape Town generally have a limited grasp of extent, unplanned and unregulated, (Hofmann, 2001; Abbott & Douglas, the spatial extent of their backyard has long-term implications for 2003) and Soweto, Johannesburg housing stock and face human urban planning and housing policy (Busgeeth, Van Den Bergh, Whisken, capacity constraints in analysing responses. During the development & Brits, 2008), and also in the spatial data sets in the form of GIS of the collaborative urban simulation6 context of peri-urban America (see shapefiles. However, the largely Ward & Peters (2007) for a study mining town of Rustenburg, located 5 Note: GTI 2010 data set was only released in on ‘colonias’ and other ‘Informal North West of Gauteng, has been 2012. For a more accurate reference, we have Homestead Subdivisions’). Spatial the geographical focal point (case decided to reference the source data obtained in 2010. methodologies are able to act as a study) for the North West Provincial 6 Refer to Shapurjee, Le Roux & Coetzee critical bridge between grounded Department of Human Settlements (2012). This study made use of UrbanSim – to devise an informal housing and an open source modelling platform – to model Facilitation. Refer to
Figure 1: The family tree – showing the density and income characteristics of Knowledge Factory main groups (for example A, B, C, D, etc.) and residential clusters (1M, 2M, 3M, etc.) Source: Knowledge Factory, n.d: 5 (Note: for a detailed explanation of main groups and 38 residential clusters, please refer to Knowledge Factory Cluster Plus [2009])
CLUSTER CLUSTER GROUP (M)ETRO & (T)OWN GROUP (M)ETRO & (T)OWN RANGE RANGE 1M Upper Crust 15M Bond Battalions 2M Pearl Strings 16M Developer’s Dream SILVER SPOONS 1T Big Fish NEW BONDS 3M Cheese and Wine 17M Strugglers Reward 4M Fashion Café Society 7T Young Blues Town 5M Suburban Bliss 18M Council’s Clutter 6M Dish and Decoder 3T 19M Kwaito Corners UPPER MIDDLE CLASS Set Platteland TOWNSHIP LIVING 20M eKasie 7M Terracotta Terraces Pearls 8T Basic Town 2T Retreat 21M City Strugglers 8M Pram Pushers TOWERING 22M Modest Masala MIDDLE SUBURBIA 9M Settled Suburbia DENSITY 23M Wilted Neon 4T Small Town Families 24M Tenement Trenches 10M Silver Threads 25M Chakalaka COMMUNITY NESTS 11M Melting Pot DIRE STRAITS 26M Poor Neighbours 5T Modest Main Street 9T The Other Town 12M Suburban Stagnation 27M Tin Town BELOW THE LABOUR POOL 13M Family Street 28M eKaya BREADLINE 14M Family Strugglers 10T Forgotten People 5T Rusty Blues Town
Figure 2: The family tree index Source: Knowledge Factory, n.d: 5 23 SSB/TRP/MDM 2014 (64) established urban areas especially within the metropolitan municipal A contexts.
4.2 Backyard housing settlement trends As expected, backyard housing is predominantly located in settlements which are characterised by lower average household incomes. Figures 4 and 5 clearly reveal that Knowledge Factory groups G, H, I and J host the predominant share of the province’s backyard housing stock. Knowledge factory group ‘G’ is classified as Township Living. This is a predominantly low household income group. “The physical environment of this group is the product of the grotesque social engineering of the previous regime. The physical environment has its roots in old council design, with all the embellishment possible by people determined to put their own stamp on the bland originals” (Knowledge Factory, 2009: 6-7). Knowledge factory group ‘H’ is classified as Towering Density. This is a predominantly low household income group. The clusters in this group are the result of social engineering gone horribly wrong. Crude tenement blocks, low-cost semi-detached council houses and once-proud Figure 3: Gauteng’s backyard housing footprint (A) relative to informal inner-city blocks that fell victim to decay – all are overcrowded; housing (B) distribution all are teetering on the brink of Source: GTI, 2010. Map prepared by CSIR Built Environment, 2013 social collapse. Teetering, but not yet falling. Thanks to the effort, strength and inspiration of community leaders, Towering seams. The local authorities of community. And with very high Density neighbourhoods have the previous regime planned unemployment levels, inferior managed to maintain the Chakalaka and Poor Neighbours education and consequently very semblance of community values, clusters as typical township despite serious social ills. People low incomes among the minority living in Towering Density are neighbourhoods with four-room of unskilled labourers who can find generally poorly educated, with matchbox houses and single- work, this group ranks amongst the result that unemployment sex hostels. Today, the hostels the poorest in South Africa levels are high. Incomes are have been converted and every (Knowledge Factory, 2009: 6-7). generally low and earned mostly bit of open space is filled with Knowledge factory group ‘J’ is in blue-collar occupations. dilapidated shacks, either as Demand for social support, such free-standing homes or extensions classified as Below The Breadline. as community clinics and youth to the original matchbox houses. This is a predominantly very low programmes, is therefore high And all are overcrowded. Naturally household income group. (Knowledge Factory, 2009: 6-7). this overcrowding places undue pressure on infrastructure and If Dire Straits clusters are the Knowledge factory group ‘I’ is social services. Public facilities result of inadequate formal classified as Dire Straits. This is a such as roads, sewerage and planning and insufficient predominantly very low household electricity are third-rate or infrastructure, Below the Breadline income group. completely lacking. Dwellings clusters developed virtually are run down and untidy – the without any formal planning and These clusters represent presence of so many shacks almost no infrastructure at all. townships bursting at the contributes to a ramshackle, bleak Originally informal settlements of 24 Shapurjee, Le Roux & Coetzee(†) • Backyard housing in Gauteng
B informal and those that are classified as formal. According to Table 1, although Soweto has the largest population size of all the backyard housing hotspots, it is also the largest in terms of land area. These two settlement features may reduce immediate density pressures (population and dwelling densities) in the township associated with backyard infilling. In addition, levels of economic growth in Soweto have supported a vibrant secondary housing market, with residents opting to move up rather than out of the township. By contrast, areas such as Tembisa, Diepsloot, Mamelodi and Atteridgeville are predominantly impoverished (indicated by higher levels of informal dwellings) and also mirror fairly high population densities. Alexandra remains the most dense backyard housing area by virtue of its small size, but also because of the ‘business of rental’ prominent in this well-located neighbourhood. Table 1 further reveals that Ivory Park, Ebony Park and Kaalfontein, Tembisa and Diepsloot are areas with the highest proportion of backyard housing (>30%). In Diepsloot, backyard structures even outnumber formal dwellings. In general, the majority of backyard housing Figure 3: Gauteng’s backyard housing footprint (A) relative to informal hotspots in Gauteng have a greater housing (B) distribution proportion of backyard dwellings Source: GTI, 2010. Map prepared by CSIR Built Environment, 2013 compared with informal dwellings. In terms of total backyard dwellings, Soweto hosts the lion’s share, shacks of varying build quality and 4.3 Quantitative characteristics but this figure may be misleading. size, Below the Breadline clusters of backyard housing Further work is required to determine are now beginning to benefit from hotspots the level of dwelling qualities across government investment in basic all the hotspot areas as well as to social services such as clinics Table 1 provides a summary of key and schools. Here and there measure possible quality-of-life some shacks are also replaced indicators of identified backyard indicators. Documenting the hard by permanent structures. In fact, housing hotspots. Data are drawn backyard numbers is useful, but more one of the stated challenges for directly from Census 2011 and needs to be done to contextualise South Africa’s utility companies is thus reflect the most up-to-date spatial patterns. to expand services to this cluster information with regard to dwelling group. Unemployment levels are counts. In terms of dwelling very high, education very low and 5. REFLECTIONS AND incomes at a desperate level. classifications, an important feature Consequently, community leaders of the data is the number of backyard CONCLUSION in these clusters fight a desperate dwellings classified as formal This article provides a high-level battle to keep social ills, such structures. This article is concerned as crime, in check (Knowledge spatial review of an increasingly Factory, 2009: 6-7). with the aggregate backyard housing significant urban growth footprint and thus analyses the phenomenon. Backyard housing combined backyard housing numbers hotspots in Gauteng are not – both those that are classified as restricted to one settlement typology, 25 SSB/TRP/MDM 2014 (64) but rather span a variety of low- across the urban affordable rental numbers. In comparison, backyard income settlements, including infilling housing continuum (see SALGA, housing numbers in Tshwane are in some state-sponsored (RDP) 2013, Executive Summary: i-ix). considerably lower, with 37 245 low-income settlements. Although units recorded. Overall, the highest Findings have shown that the the study did not investigate these proportions of backyard housing are backyard housing footprint areas specifically, it is critical that located in Ivory Park, Ebony Park and further research be conducted in predominates in the metropolitan Kaalfontein, Tembisa and Diepsloot. these contexts to understand fully municipalities of Johannesburg, With relatively high population the market dynamics as well as Ekurhuleni and Tshwane. The densities in these areas (160 persons the human stories surrounding the City of Johannesburg hosts the per hectare, 108 persons per hectare supply and demand of RDP backyard majority of Gauteng’s backyard and 209 persons per hectare, housing. Following Lemanski’s housing units (145 737), followed respectively), backyard housing (2009) and Shapurjee’s (2010) by Ekurhuleni with 102 253. The infilling is likely to have impacts on research, more qualitative research functional relationship between municipal service capacity, at least in approaches, including participatory Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni may the medium to long term. methods/action research, are needed account for similar backyard housing The Knowledge Factory residential codes (main groups) and subsidiary residential clusters provide useful household-income indicators for identified backyard housing hotspots in Gauteng. However, further work is required to determine the underlying varying reasons for backyard infilling in respective hotspots. In particular, municipal by-laws may need to be investigated (such sentiments are also echoed by SALGA, 2013: Chapter 7: 13-19). Approaches to informality by respective municipalities in Gauteng should also be further researched. In some RDP settlements such as Lehae in the south of Johannesburg, the building of informal backyard structures is prohibited and extensively policed (see, for example, Huchzermeyer, 2009: 65), whereas in other cases backyard accommodation is simply ignored or tolerated. Compounding the problem of this uneven approach towards backyard accommodation is the lack of a uniform housing policy on rental housing. Until a uniform housing policy is forthcoming and mainstreamed without delay into the wider housing discourse in South Africa, efforts to improve backyard housing environments may be stifled (SALGA, 2013: Chapter 5: 1). The realities of backyard housing in urban agglomerations such as Gauteng may likely pose challenges with regard to healthy living conditions, housing safety standard, housing building standards and the debate around the State’s role in Figure 4: The relationship between backyard housing and Knowledge Factory facilitating the supply of cheap rental Codes (also known as ‘Main Groups’) accommodation without displacing Source: Knowledge Factory, 2010; GTI, 2010 (Map prepared by CSIR Built the poor through gentrification and Environment, 2013) thus rental increases imposed on 26 Shapurjee, Le Roux & Coetzee(†) • Backyard housing in Gauteng
Table 1: Characterising backyard housing hotspots in Gauteng1
Backyard housing hotspots
Ivory Park+ Orange Soweto Diepsloot Ebony Farm+ Etwatwa + Atteridgeville+ Indicator Alexandra (excludes Tembisa (excludes Mamelodi Soshanguve Katlehong Park+ Drie Ziek+ Daveyton Saulsville SP*) Diepsloot Kaalfontein Stretford AH SP)
Settlement 691 12875 1580 4280 656 3053 4519 12677 3528 5536 1850 size (ha)
Population size 179624 1241767 252840 463109 137310 173530 334577 403162 279833 407294 169632
Population density 260 96 160 108 209 57 74 32 79 74 92 (persons per ha)
No. of informal backyard 5754 36371 17421 20017 20461 5271 12498 8582 10962 19467 4464 dwellings
No. of formal 4651 34929 15862 37903 3827 1190 6850 2507 2244 11660 2344 dwellings
Total no. of backyard dwellings 10405 71300 33283 57920 24288 6461 19348 11089 13206 31127 6808 (informal and formal)
No. of informal 9622 14454 8181 23836 20045 7047 29723 17766 18484 10636 22306 dwellings
No. of formal 42680 255075 49241 82726 17485 34567 60727 75803 46172 81417 24365 dwellings
No. of other dwellings (traditional, 1032 3930 1005 1858 606 509 906 1401 1260 1661 407 caravan, (other)
Total no. of 63739 344759 91710 166340 62424 48584 110704 106059 79122 124841 53886 dwellings
Backyard dwellings as % 16.32% 20.68% 36.29% 34.82% 38.91% 13.30% 17.48% 10.46% 16.69% 24.93% 12.63% of total number of dwellings
Ratio of backyard dwellings 1:4.10 1:3.58 1:1.48 1:1.43 1:0.72 1:5.35 1:3.14 1:6.84 1:3.50 1:2.62 1:3.58 to formal dwellings
Ratio of backyard dwellings 1:0.93 1:0.20 1:0.25 1:0.41 1:0.83 1:1.10 1:1.54 1:1.60 1:1.40 1:0.34 1:3.28 to informal dwellings
17, 18, 17, 19, 16,17,19, 17,19,23, KF code 19, 20, 19, 24, 16, 24, 15, 16, 18, 15, 28 18,26,28 20, 24, 28 20,24,26, 24,25,26, 24,26 prevalence 24, 26, 25 27, 28 26 19, 20, 26 26, 28 27 27 27
1 Note: boundaries are according to 2011 StatsSA, main place and sub-place. Soweto excludes the following sub-places: Bram Fischerville Ext. 12; South Roodepoort Main Reef areas Gold Mine; Doornkop AH; Stesa AH; Klipspruit Treatment Works; Power Park. Note: backyard dwellings as a percentage of total number of dwellings refers to the proportion of backyard housing units (expressed as a %) in relation to total housing units in a given hotspot (geographical location). 27 SSB/TRP/MDM 2014 (64) tenants by landlords. Alongside to relatively stable housing tenure, & Charlton, 2013; SALGA, 2013). Shapurjee & Charlton (2013) and access to formal basic sanitation, But such a wide-reaching housing SALGA (2013), this article suggests water and electricity networks; subsector holds value for particular that the State play a facilitative role and also provides opportunities urban households. Municipalities rather than directly intervening in for tenants to build their own should also note the benefits rather a largely well-functioning housing rental backyard structures – with than lament the informality and submarket that is able to generate the potential to expand and/or generally poor housing conditions of new housing stock (and rental renovate their accommodation. For some backyard housing units. Thus, housing tenure) relatively quickly landlords, backyard housing is a municipal planning and management and relatively cheaply. Thus, support vital source of income to vulnerable strategies should focus on medium- should be given to more responsive households which research shows to long-term basic infrastructure and context-specific municipal (see Gordon & Nell, 2006) are including public transport routes management of backyard housing older, mainly single-headed female in order to guide the inevitable and associated spatial planning and households with relatively low development of backyard housing land-use management strategies. incomes, compounded by unstable in well-located areas over time. A positive view of backyard housing employment. Crucially, for tenants, Ongoing collection and management is that it meets density objectives, on the other hand, “backyard housing of spatial land use and housing data advocated by many metropolitan serves as vital ‘life-lines to diverse sets, complementing this with a municipalities in their Spatial urban households, and despite not critical analysis of dominant spatial Development Frameworks and other being an ideal or even accepted patterns of informal settlements strategic plans. Added to densification form of accommodation is relatively development, emerging backyard successful” (Shapurjee & Charlton, outcomes, is the multiple re[use] housing trends and potentially a 2013: 654). of low-income housing as well as temporal/retrospective analysis over landlords leveraging off spaces South Africa’s backyard phenomenon a five-year period in order to overlap in their backyard to provide a is complex, multi-layered, challenging sustainable human settlement means for tenants to gain access and politically contested (Shapurjee strategies with the integrated (and
Figure 5: Zoomed in images of backyard housing in Gauteng Source: Knowledge Factory, 2010; GTI, 2010 (Map prepared by CSIR Built Environment, 2013)
28 Shapurjee, Le Roux & Coetzee(†) • Backyard housing in Gauteng spatial) development planning five- City of Johannesburg Metropolitan International Symposium Remote year cycle. Municipality, Central Strategy Unit. Sensing of Urban Areas, Regensburg, Germany, 22-23 June 2001, series 35. CRANKSHAW, O., GILBERT, A.G. & Regensburg: Inst. für Geographie and MORRIS, A. 2000. Backyard Soweto. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT University Regensburg, pp. 107-118. International Journal of Urban and This article is based on findings Regional Research, 24(4), pp. 841-857. HOFMANN, P., STROBL, J., emanating from the Integrated BLASCHKE, T. & KUX, H. 2008. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING Detecting informal settlements from Planning and Development (DOH). 2004. Breaking new ground: QuickBird data in Rio de Janeiro Modelling Project (IPDM), funded A comprehensive plan for the using an object-based approach. In: by the Department of Science and development of sustainable human Cartwright, W., Gartner, G., Meng, Technology (DST). settlements. Pretoria: Government L. & Peterson, M.P. (series eds.). Printer. Lecture notes in Geoinformation REFERENCES LIST GARDNER, D. 2009. Small-scale and cartography: Object-based private rental: A strategy for increasing image analysis spatial concepts for ABBOTT, J. & DOUGLAS, D. 2003. supply in South Africa. Report knowledge-driven remote sensing The use of longitudinal spatial analyses published for the Social Housing applications. Springer, Berlin, in urban development planning. Foundation in conjunction with Urban pp. 531-553. Development Southern Africa, 20(1), Landmark: Johannesburg. pp. 3-19. HUCHZERMEYER, M. 2009. The GAUTENG CITY REGION struggle for in situ upgrading of informal AHMAD, P. 2012. Growth management OBSERVATORY (GCRO). 2013. settlements: A reflection on cases strategy: Growth trends and ‘Backyard Housing in the Gauteng City in Gauteng. Development Southern development indicators fourth annual Region (GCR). GCRO Vignette (No 16). Africa, 26(1), pp. 59-73. assessment: Stakeholder presentation. Published by GCRO, Johannesburg: KNOWLEDGE FACTORY CLUSTER Johannesburg, prepared by the
30