Registered users can save articles to their personal articles list. Login here or sign up here

What a failed Johannesburg project tells us about mega cities in Africa

How does Modderfontein’s failure relate to the broader African urban context?

Six years ago a major development was announced in South Africa. Billed as a game changer, it was meant to alter the urban footprint of Johannesburg, Africa’s richest city, forever.

The Modderfontein New City project was launched amid much fanfare, expectation and media hype.

Zendai, a Chinese developer, bought a 1600-hectare site north-east of Johannesburg for the development, which it quickly dubbed as the “New York of Africa”. Early plans showed it was to include 55 000 housing units, 1 468 000 m2 of office space and all the necessary amenities for urban life in the form of a single large-scale urban district. The cost estimate was set at R84 billion.

The developers believed that Modderfontein could function as a global business hub and would become Johannesburg’s main commercial centre, replacing Sandton. The project would also change Johannesburg’s international profile by strengthening relations with Asian corporate interests.

But, despite the release of futuristic computer-generated images which led to significant publicity for the project, it was never built. Instead, the land was eventually sold off. Another developer has since begun construction on a much more scaled down project, in the form of a gated-community style housing development.

Modderfontein has faded away from the public consciousness. The story of why it failed has never been adequately told in the media.

Our research, which took place over the course of several years, sought to understand the factors which led to the project’s demise. We also wanted to find out how Modderfontein’s failure relates to the broader African urban context.

We found that the project was hindered by conflicting visions between the developer and the City of Johannesburg. Moreover, unexpectedly low demand for both housing and office space meant the original plan for the project was incompatible with the city’s real estate market.

The project’s trajectory also shows how African “edge-city” developments, which are generally elite-driven and marketed as “eco-friendly” or “smart”, can be influenced by a strong local government with the means and willingness to shape development.

Conflicting interests 

Zendai’s aspirations to produce a high-end, mixed-used development did not fit with the City of Johannesburg’s approach. Rather than a luxurious global hub, the city wanted a more inclusive development – one which reflected the principles outlined in its 2014 Spatial Development Framework.

At the heart of the framework is the desire to reshape a trend that saw capital leave the old central business district for affluent Sandton at the dawn of democracy in 1994. This was accompanied by an upsurge in securitised suburbs further north towards Pretoria, the country’s capital city.

These spatial trends were incompatible with the ideals of South Africa’s new democratic government and its strategy to mitigate the effects of apartheid-era planning. During apartheid, black people were prohibited from living in more affluent areas, which were reserved for the minority white population. Instead, they were forced into sprawling “townships” on the periphery of cities, far from work and economic opportunities.

To this end, the city demanded that Zendai include at least 5 000 affordable homes in its plans. It also wanted to ensure that the development was compatible with, and complemented, Johanneburg’s public transport system. The city was willing to contribute funding for the necessary infrastructure and inclusive housing.

Yet Zendai remained steadfast in its commitment to its vision, eventually deciding against fully integrating the city’s wishes into its planning application. This saw the city draw-out the planning process.

Meanwhile, problems were mounting for Zendai. The owner, Dai Zhikang, was eventually forced to sell his stake in the project to the China Orient Asset Management Company. Rather than continuing with the project, the asset managers sold the land to the company behind the new housing development on the site.

Smart cities in Africa 

Over the last decade, a variety of developments like Modderfontein, including Eko-Atlantic in Nigeria, New Cairo in Egypt, and Konza Technology City in Kenya, have been touted by both public and private sectors as panaceas for Africa’s urban problems. The thinking is that as the developments are disconnected from the existing urban landscape, they won’t be burdened by crime or informality. However, these projects can take badly needed resources away from the marginalised areas of the city.

To make them more palatable to domestic and international audiences, the developments are usually marketed as “smart” or “eco-friendly”.

But these developments can fail at the point of implementation. This is because, as speculative projects, they generally don’t recognise the need to fit in with the wishes of the local authorities or adapt to the existing city. In the case of Modderfontein, the city government had the capability to push back against the developers and, in the end tried to shape the project to better fit Johannesburg’s urban realities.The Conversation

Ricardo Reboredo, PhD Candidate in Geography, Trinity College Dublin and Frances Brill, Research fellow, UCL.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Get access to Moneyweb's financial intelligence and support quality journalism for only
R63/month or R630/year.
Sign up here, cancel at any time.

COMMENTS   10

To comment, you must be registered and logged in.

LOGIN HERE

Don't have an account?
Sign up for FREE

When I expressed doubt about the project I was called all kind of names. Now I feel that my pessimism about Africa in general got justified again.

Your doubt was based on? Your complete pessimism I will assume , it is based on your doubts?

OMG ….not sure if your two “queries” are your naivety, your ignorance or perhaps both

Your doubts are not pessimistic, they are based on the track record held by politicians who promised us all beautiful garments however given us naked cloth instead.
A childhood story called The Emperors new Clothes C.A Reitzel.

Unfortunately the projects that do get off the ground (medupi and kusile etc) often have massive fraud, bribery and corruption whilst being over paid for.

So who will really invest?
This is why we are seeing the prescribe assets of our pensions being implemented.

All I say is be prepared for more white elephants…

Rather what this failed Johannesburg project tells us is that Council’s polices are wrongly inspired. If the City wants 5000 inclusionary housing units then it must as the Ministry of Housing to build them.

There is only so much cross-subsidization that is tolerable and the city expects the developers to build housing units for the indigent and illegal immigrants for free.

This will always fail.

It seems somehow that very few people in “leadership” can do arithmetic, to be polite. Many of them seem to think ratepayer or taxpayer loot is unlimited and to be spent however they, the Big Men leaders choose. They cannot seem to see that you need to encourage rate paying entities to establish in your city in order to have an income to afford vanities like largely uneconomic mixed housing. Some sort of socialist, African or 3rd world malaise?

First build the low cost housing project and then see if you can attract the upmarket housing clients….good luck forcing people of different social levels to cohabit in your silly inclusions ry projects!

That’s precisely why it failed and the investors withdrew!

Somewhat similar to the Samrand fizzle south of Pretoria that started (tried to) in the late nineties. When will the honest thinking and understanding kick in that the South African economy is actually two countries in one: a small in numbers, large in activity main economy which carries a over-large bulk of the 50 – 60 million population: thus, albeit that the average demographic and economic numbers makes nice presentations, these large-scale schemes trying to grow outside the natural historic and African-paced development of South Africa cannot work. And then there is the overseas European/Asian/American non-understanding that a lot of South Africans actually takes pride in developing and living in places like Soweto – the mere fact that these developments at the time were useful in the propaganda against apartheid does not mean that nowadays everybody desires to move out of there. Investments are welcome, but perhaps should be more respectful of all South Africans themselves.

These goes R84 billion rand investment in South Africa. Why not just let people decide where they want to live and with whom? I don’t recall any affordable housing units included in the parliamentary housing complex…

So you have to sign away your life for the next 20 years to buy a dwelling. Do you:

a) Choose a place where there’s 5000 low-cost units, populated by *vibrant*, *cosmopolitant* people, thereby decimating your property’s desirability, all in the name of daai-vêssity?

b) Go and live somewhere safe, among people who look like you, where you have a reasonable prospect of reselling your property, because you don’t live in an ethnic ghetto?

Load All 10 Comments
End of comments.

LATEST CURRENCIES  

USD / ZAR
GBP / ZAR
EUR / ZAR

Podcasts

GO TO SHOP CART

Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company:
server: 172.17.0.2