Keywords

1 Introduction

At different stages in South Africa’s history, urban planning was used as the main tool for reconstructing society. Urban and regional development policies were used by a centralised regime to entrench apartheid (Mabin and Smit 1997). In fact, urban planning under apartheid ‘crippled the ability of South Africa’s cities to offer a decent urban life to most of their citizens” (Mabin 1998:2). In the early 1990s, as democratic initiatives gained momentum, urban planners in South Africa attempted to reconstruct apartheid cities by offering alternative development discourses to redress the effects of racial planning. The aim of this chapter is to critically assess the alternative urban reconstruction and development discourses in post-apartheid South Africa. This chapter analyses urban planning in South Africa in the apartheid and post-apartheid eras. A key contention of this chapter is that notwithstanding progressive policy shifts since 1994, there are also some remarkable continuities between the apartheid and post-apartheid eras.

This chapter is divided into four sections. The first section briefly reviews the apartheid legacy. This is followed by an analysis of first wave post-apartheid urban planning and development strategies, which were driven, by the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP). The subsequent transition to neoliberal GEAR orthodoxy encountered an aberration with the basic needs oriented RDP. The Urban Development Framework and the White Paper on Local Government facilitated the implementation of GEAR in cities. The White Paper set the foundation for a new developmental local government system with an emphasis on integrated development strategies. The third section analyses the spatial focus of urban policies during the second democratic decade. The neoliberal bent continued with successive policies such as National Development Plan and Integrated Urban Development Framework. The final section reflects on the grounded realities of urban policy impacts, which have in many respects entrenched and reinforced apartheid spatial patterns.

2 Apartheid Planning Legacy

Until 1990, urban and regional development policies in South Africa were intended to implement apartheid, and the planning discourse was organised along the lines of racial separation and operationalised through spatial partition. The apartheid planning discourse was organised along the lines of racial separation and operationalised through spatial partition. More specifically, Africans were denied access to, and participation in, all political structures, and hence had little or no influence on decision-making, especially about the allocation of resources.

Although many factors have been responsible for the inequitable distribution of political power and wealth in South Africa, it has been argued that the dispossession of land had the most immediate impact on black communities. The 1913 Land Act allocated 13 per cent of the land to blacks. The economic and social structure of these communities was often premised on the distribution of land, typical of most agrarian communities. Therefore, dispossession was ‘an act akin to national destruction’ (De Klerk 1991:1).

The Urban Areas Act of 1923 represented the first attempt by a minority white regime to control, manage and segregate urban Africans. This Act introduced influx control policies that restricted the movement of blacks into cities (Rich 1978). The Group Areas Act of 1950 was one of the key legislative instruments used to reinforce the ideology of apartheid, and emphasised separate residential areas, educational services and amenities for the different race groups (Maharaj 1997). The management of the apartheid city was thus characterised by a ‘complex process of functional inclusion, spatial separation, and political exclusion’ (Swilling et al. 1991:175).

Despite the apartheid regime’s attempts to curb urbanisation through separate development and influx control policies, cities continued to grow. Poverty and lack of socio-economic opportunities led to the migration of large numbers of rural black people to the cities. The nature of the apartheid planning discourse resulted in urban areas being characterised by open spaces, under-utilised infrastructure and services. Such spaces were exploited by the marginalised to gain a foothold in locations close to opportunities in the urban areas. Lack of housing led to an increasing number of informal settlements on vacant land close to cities and suburbs. By the late 1970s, the state was forced to acknowledge that influx control had failed, and to concede the reality of a permanent black presence. However, the product was ‘urban permanence without reincorporation into the primary local government system and the white cities’ (Swilling et al. 1991:175).

As illustrated in Table 6.1, the contemporary South African city is reflective of a discourse of apartheid urban planning characterised by racially fragmented and discontinuous land use and settlement patterns, haphazard, dysfunctional and inefficient spatial ordering, land-use mismatches, low level population density and the concentration of the poor in relatively high-density areas on the peripheries and the rich in the core intermediate urban areas (Hindson et al. 1992:6). Furthermore, this urban form spatially inscribes racially informed power relations. The redress of this situation must, imperatively, be informed by:

Table 6.1 Urban Challenges in South Africa in the 1990s
Full size table
  1. (1)

    the creation of a new planning discourse as an alternative to the planning apparatus inherited from the segregationist and apartheid state;

  2. (2)

    the physical and economic reconstruction of the racially divided city;

  3. (3)

    the introduction of a transparent and unified system of urban revenue creation; and

  4. (4)

    the social, political and psychological incorporation of all black South Africans into legitimate state structures and the sensitisation of the state to survival systems and social networks that dominate the lives of the poor citizens (Parnell and Pieterse 1999:65).

3 Reconstruction, Development and Planning

An attempt to introduce a new urban planning discourse started with the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP). The RDP emerged as the key strategy to address the social and economic inequalities of apartheid and the transition to a non-racial democracy. The principles of the RDP were summarised by the African National Congress (ANC) as follows: ‘An integrated programme, based on the people, that provides peace and security for all and builds the nation, links reconstruction and development and deepens democracy’ (ANC 1994:7, original emphasis). The RDP played an important role from a policy perspective to ensure the ‘successful transition from separate development towards a more sustainable development future’ (Munslow and FitzGerald 1997:60). Many believed that the RDP was very ambitious and utopian, filled with good intentions, but with no indication as to how this would be realised. The Urban Development Strategy was the first policy intervention in the democratic era to address challenges facing cities.

3.1 Urban Development Strategy

The Urban Development Strategy (UDS) of the Government of National Unity, released in October 1995, was influenced by the RDP in terms of being ‘people driven, integrated and sustainable, and implemented mainly through the reallocation of existing resources’ (Ministry of the Office of the President 1995:15). More specifically, the UDS identified five priority areas:

  1. (i)

    Integrating the Cities and Managing Urban Growth: The UDS aims to integrate the cities and towns with special focus on rebuilding the townships, job creation, provision of housing and urban amenities through integrated development planning, reducing commuting distances and introducing environmentally sensitive management of development and improving public passenger transport (Ministry of the Office of the President 1995:10). The concern with compact cities was partly influenced by the World Bank which argued that ‘South African cities are among the most inefficient in the world and called for restructuring to achieve higher densities and more compact urban development’ (Mabin 1998:6).

  2. (ii)

    Investing in Urban Development: Urban development investment focuses on upgrading existing houses and constructing new houses; restoring and extending infrastructure services, reducing environmental health hazards, encouraging investment; providing job opportunities and social community facilities (Ministry of the Office of the President 1995:10).

  3. (iii)

    Building Habitable and Safe Environments: The strategy focuses on human and social objectives and three areas have been identified:

    1. (a)

      Social Development—this would be achieved through community-based development and the provision of health, educational, sport and recreational services and opportunities;

    2. (b)

      Social Security—would take the form of caring for the aged, children who had been neglected, broken families, provision of social care and services;

    3. (c)

      Safety and Security—would be achieved by addressing those socio-economic conditions, which perpetuate crime and violence and undermine development (Ministry of the Office of the President 1995:11).

  4. (iv)

    Promoting Urban Economic Development: The new democratic government recognises cities as ‘engines of economic growth’, given that urban areas generate 80 per cent of South Africa’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Urban development had to ensure the concomitant effect of generating greater economic activity, maximizing direct employment opportunities and alleviating urban poverty. Local economic development has been identified as an important growth strategy in the post-apartheid era (Nel 2001).

  5. (v)

    Creating Institutions for Delivery: The primary task of delivering services was the responsibility of the local government, while the provincial government had to prioritise, monitor and evaluate development. Central government had the responsibility to provide funding which would be influenced by national reconstruction and development priorities. According to the UDS, there was a need for new local government to improve administrative, planning and implementation functions through the more efficient utilisation of resources (Government Gazette, No. 16679 1995:42). The UDS emphasises a strong relationship between private and public sector in the delivery of services.

In response to the UDS, there were ‘often vitriolic debates between those arguing for dramatic, community-driven, state supported urban transformation and those who supported a more measured pace of market oriented change’ (Bond et al. 1996:102). There was a view that in many respects, the UDS was more market-oriented and hence was a retrogressive step from the RDP.

Some have argued that the UDS was ‘mainly geared to rearranging cities for the benefit of multinational corporations and export-oriented producers’ (Bond et al. 1996:102). It was therefore not surprising that the UDS was largely welcomed by the private sector. However, the Centre for Development Enterprise (CDE), a neoliberal private sector research/policy institute, was concerned that the emphasis on addressing basic needs and services in South African cities was lopsided as insufficient attention focused on issues of local economic development and productivity of urban areas which would generate the resources to provide the services (CDE 1996a, b).

The second wave of post-apartheid urban planning strategies extended the market orientation of the UDS.

3.2 Slide to Neoliberalism

The second wave of post-apartheid urban planning was influenced by significant shifts in the government’s macro-economic policy with the adoption of the Growth, Employment and Redistribution strategy (GEAR) in June 1996. GEAR emphasises that economic development will be led by the private sector; there will be privatisation of state-owned enterprises; government expenditure (especially social services) will be reduced; exchange control regulations will be relaxed; and there will be a more flexible labour market (Department of Finance 1996).

Contrary to the government rhetoric, GEAR, which emphasises fiscal discipline, debt reduction and cuts in public spending, was viewed by many as a departure from the RDP, and was a neoliberal strategy. The transition to neoliberal GEAR orthodoxy encountered an aberration with the basic needs oriented RDP, and the influence of the World Bank was evident (Bond 2000a, b). The liberation movement was apparently assimilated into this ideological paradigm largely through appeals to pragmatism and the need to come to terms with the realities of globalisation (by highly paid World Bank academic consultants) (Desai and Bohmke 1997).

Local authorities will be forced to generate a larger proportion of their own revenues, and there is a strong emphasis on public–private partnerships. Within an urban setting this ‘means privatisation and the promotion of the principle of cost recovery which will reflect in inadequate subsidies targeted at the poor’ (Parnell and Pieterse 1999:75).

Two policy documents, the Urban Development Framework (UDF) released in 1997, and the White Paper on Local Government issued in March 1998, gave spatial impetus to the GEAR strategy.

3.3 Urban Development Framework

The aim of the UDF was to ‘outline the urban initiatives necessary to give substance to the imperatives outlined in the GEAR strategy’ (UDF :ii). The UDF emphasised the importance of public–private partnerships in financing, managing and delivering services. The UDF argued that based on international experience, the ‘success or failure of national development initiatives will largely be shaped in cities and towns’ (UDF 1998:2).

As explained in Table 6.2, the implementation of the UDF would depend on four key strategies: integrating the city; improving housing and infrastructure; promoting urban economic development; creating institutions for delivery (UDF 1997:ix).

Table 6.2 Implementing the UDF
Full size table

In its appraisal of contemporary urban realities, the UDF tends to emphasise the urgency to control and regulate the city in terms of sustainability, economic efficiency and participation (Simone 1998:2). An important concern influencing the UDF was a need to examine the role and functions of cities against a background of increasing levels of globalisation. Conventional wisdom suggests that cities must become more competitive, which was mainly expressed by their ability to attract more private capital and new economic activities. Although the UDF is not explicit about this, the GEAR strategy ‘would seem to indicate coherence to this convention’ (Simone 1998:7).

Linked with the UDF was a radical restructuring of the role and function of local government.

3.4 Developmental Local Government

In 1994 the new democratic government in South Africa acknowledged that local authorities will have an important role in unleashing the ‘political and creative energies of the people and bring[ing] the government closer to the people’ (RDP 1994:22). The de-racialisation of local government represented a major challenge. The socio-spatial distortions of the apartheid era had to be addressed through a more equitable distribution of resources, and the re-drawing of geographical boundaries.

In an attempt to address these problems, the White Paper on Local Government provided the foundation for a new developmental local government (DLG) system, which is committed to working with citizens, groups and communities to create sustainable human settlements which provide for a decent quality of life and meet the social, economic and material needs of communities in a holistic way (Government Gazette, 13/3/98, p. 15).

DLG exhorts local authorities to focus on achieving developmental outcomes, such as the provision of basic infrastructure and services; the creation of integrated cities and liveable environments; the encouragement of local economic development initiatives; and the empowerment of communities. Developmental local government has four basic characteristics:

i) executing municipal powers and functions in a way that optimises the potential for social development and economic growth;

ii) development should be managed in a manner which ensures that it is integrated (socially and spatially, as well co-ordinating public and private investments), and sustainable;

iii) promote democratic values institutionally and within the community; and

iv) empower that poor and marginalised and build social capital by providing community leadership and vision (Government Gazette, 13/3/98).

Three inter-linked approaches to help municipalities to effectively play a developmental role were proposed: ‘integrated development planning and budgeting; performance management; and working together with local citizens and partners’ (Government Gazette, 13/3/98, p.16). An important strategy to help municipalities to become developmental is integrated development planning (IDP). Integrated development planning depends on the coordination of a range of services and regulations, including land-use planning, household infrastructure, environmental management, transport, health and education, safety and security and housing (Government Gazette, 13 March 1998).

Trade unions and community organisations were critical about whether DLG would achieve its goals. While the DLG focuses on supplying basic services, the emphasis should be on providing basic needs that should be sustainable. This would only be possible if there was a funding system that would allow local authorities to meet these obligations. There was a failure to adequately consider the role that government intervention and funding can play in achieving the DLG objective of improving the quality of life of the poor (SAMWU 1997). The government emphasised the role of the private sector in the delivery of services. This shift seems to be driven more by budgetary rather than efficiency concerns. The private sector, however, is driven by the profit motive and is unlikely to invest in poor areas where people cannot afford to pay for services. A major criticism of urban planning in the first democratic decade was a failure to develop a ‘coherent spatial policy’:

Although there was broad consensus over the need to address the legacies of apartheid, there was no agreement on how to achieve this. For example, should jobs be brought to the people, or should people be brought to the jobs? Should investment go to the former homelands or should the state encourage people to move away from the homelands? (Harrison 2010:12).

A more focused spatial policy planning imperative emerged during the second democratic decade.

4 The Spatial Imperative

Notwithstanding the above urban policies, during second democratic decade the South African government was concerned about the widening socio-spatial inequalities in the country. There was acknowledgement that while the South African space economy was complex, growth was concentrated in a few major urban centres. Hence, subsequent urban policy interventions had a strong spatial focus, and the aim was reducing inequalities and to promote social inclusion and integration. In this section, the National Spatial Development Perspective, the National Development Plan and the Integrated Urban Development Framework will be discussed.

4.1 National Spatial Development Perspective

A major concern of the government was that the dysfunctional spatial patterns of the apartheid era were largely unchanged. Between 2003 and 2006, the National Spatial Development Perspective (NSDP) emerged providing guidelines ‘for bringing about coordinated government action and alignment to meet social, economic and environmental objectives’ (Presidency 2006:i). More specifically, the NSDP was based on the following principles:

  1. (i)

    Sustainable and inclusive rapid economic growth was critical for poverty alleviation and creating a better life for all.

  2. (ii)

    There was a constitutional commitment to ensure that all citizens had basic services (e.g. sanitation, electricity, health, schools) regardless of where they lived.

  3. (iii)

    Government should also identify localities with potential for economic growth and create conditions to attract private sector investment that would generate sustainable jobs.

  4. (iv)

    In areas with high levels of poverty, the priority should be on human capacity development (education, training, skills acquisition).

  5. (v)

    Settlement and economic opportunities should be developed in corridors and nodes that are contiguous to major industrial hubs, ‘to overcome the spatial distortions of apartheid’ (Presidency 2006:ii).

The above spatial principles were further expanded in the National Development Plan.

4.2 National Development Plan

The National Planning Commission (NPC) launched the National Development Plan (NDP) in 2012, and the goal was to reduce poverty and inequality by 2030. The objective was to develop an inclusive economy and build human capabilities. The NPC (2012:260) acknowledged that the RDP goals of ‘breaking down apartheid geography through land reform, more compact cities, decent public transport and the development of industries and services that use local resources and/or meet local needs’ have not been realised.

Therefore, the NPC (2012:279) argued for a national spatial framework to: ‘Tackle inherited spatial divisions; unlock development potential; guide and inform infrastructure investment and prioritization; manage contemporary economic and demographic shifts; and facilitate coordination between parts of government and other agents’. Furthermore, planning in South Africa will be directed by a set of prescriptive principles ‘to create spaces that are liveable, equitable, sustainable, resilient and efficient, and support economic opportunities and social cohesion’ (NPC 2012:259).

More specifically, the following five core normative principles would influence spatial planning, which was viewed as a ‘long-term project’:

(1) Spatial justice: The historic apartheid legacy of socio-spatial segregation, the confinement of black people to ghettos and the unequal allocation of resources for the poor had to be reversed. Priority must be given to the needs of the poor.

(2) Spatial sustainability: Principles of sustainable development must be incorporated in all facets of planning, especially about the natural environment.

(3) Spatial resilience: Vulnerability to natural hazards, environmental deterioration, resource exploitation and climatic change must be reduced. Endangered ecological systems should be protected and revived.

(4) Spatial quality: The built environment, especially the housing sector, must be aesthetically vibrant and liveable, and must accommodate those with disabilities.

(5) Spatial efficiency: The spatial location of economic activities should reduce time, cost and distance for workers (NPC 2012:277).

The Integrated Urban Development Framework is the most recent strategy for transforming cities, and is influenced by the NDP.

4.3 Integrated Urban Development Framework

‘Spatial transformation’ is a critical outcome of the Integrated Urban Development Framework (IUDF) that was launched in 2016 by the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA). There was acknowledgement that realising the above vision of the NDP ‘requires integrated and coordinated interventions to deal with social exclusion, environmental threats, economic inefficiencies, logistical bottlenecks, urban insecurity, decaying infrastructure and the impacts of new technologies’ (COGTA 2016:4). The implementation of the IUDF will also influence the attainment Goal 11 of the Sustainable Development Goals: ‘Making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’.

The aim of the IUDF was to develop ‘inclusive, resilient and liveable urban settlements, while directly addressing the unique conditions and challenges facing South Africa’s cities and towns’ (COGTA 2016:8). There was also recognition that spatial transformation was a long-term rather than a quick-fix process. To realise this aim, four broad strategic targets were identified by the IUDF:

  1. (i)

    Spatial integration: To forge new spatial forms in settlement, transport, social and economic areas.

  2. (ii)

    Inclusion and access: To ensure people have access to social and economic services, opportunities and choices.

  3. (iii)

    Growth: To harness urban dynamism for inclusive, sustainable economic growth and development.

  4. (iv)

    Governance: To enhance the capacity of the state and its citizens to work together to achieve spatial and social integration (Republic of South Africa 2016:8).

5 Urban Policy Impacts—Entrenching or Transcending Apartheid?

While the government and other interest groups were debating and developing urban planning policies, new realities were emerging on the ground. Three distinct processes about the changing racial structures of contemporary South African cities were identified in the mid-1990s, which persist in the contemporary era:

  1. (1)

    The desegregation of the inner city and the limited desegregation of the inner white suburban areas. It should be noted that this type of desegregation of white suburban areas is primarily due to class and wealth instead of race.

  2. (2)

    The expansion of the former black townships on land adjacent to the former white suburbs and the expansion of informal settlements on the urban fringes of former white suburbs.

  3. (3)

    The spontaneous growth of informal settlements within more affluent areas (Saff 1994, 1996; Crankshaw 2008; Schensul 2008).

During apartheid, large vacant land, known as buffer zones, separated white suburbs from black townships. In the 1980s, the black townships had experienced an increase in backyard shack dwellings, which expanded on vacant land on the peripheries of white suburbs. The scrapping of the Group Areas Act, violence and crime in the townships, and rising unemployment precipitated movement of people to vacant land in the inner city, and open land occupations and invasions replaced clandestine squatting (Hindson, Byerley and Morris 1994).

While these processes spatially changed the racial impress of the apartheid, it had little social effect on the new black residents, as they were excluded from access to virtually all facilities and social institutions within the neighbouring white suburbs (Saff 1994). Although there was a major investment in infrastructure, poverty remained a major challenge, and there were remarkable continuities between the apartheid and democratic eras in terms of socio-spatial inequalities (Clarno 2013; Chapman 2015).

Land invasions in South Africa, for example, have largely taken place on property adjacent to existing townships, on the periphery of urban areas. More recently, the urban poor began moving towards the city-core areas, mainly on land surrounding Indian and coloured suburbs. Hence, invasions ‘tend to reinforce the broad apartheid geography of the cities rather than fundamentally challenge it’ (Mabin 1992:21-2). Bremner (2000:87) has similarly argued that since 1994, urban policies have ‘reinforced rather than confronted apartheid geography’.

Another urban reality in the post-apartheid era is the decline of the inner city and the flight of capital from the CBDs. The high crime rates in the inner-city areas played a significant role in the decline of the CBDs. The inner-city areas of Johannesburg were most severely affected, followed by Durban and Cape Town. Financial institutions were reluctant to grant loans in inner city areas because of the risk, overcrowding, and the inadequate maintenance of buildings (Wilhelm-Solomon 2016, 2017).

To become more globally competitive, a neoliberal urban promotion strategy in South Africa was marketing the city as a mega-event destination. A concern is the impact of these neoliberal strategies on the lives of the poor. Hosting the Fifa 2010 World Cup was used to promote the status and power of the ruling elite, while simultaneously serving as a catalyst to push the poor to the edge, if not out of, the cities. About 100,000 street vendors, mostly women, lost their livelihoods throughout the duration of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. There were legitimate concerns that the escalation in the costs of the stadiums and infrastructure for Fifa 2010 resulted in the diversion of public funds from more urgent social priorities such as sanitation, housing, healthcare and education. There was simply no place for the poor in aspiring world-class cities (Maharaj 2011, 2015).

South Africa’s urban poor have suffered most from the neoliberal strategies and they carry the burden of reduced subsidies, increased cost of services and disconnections (especially electricity and water), rising unemployment, and declining social welfare expenditure (Desai 2002). How are poor people responding to water and electricity disconnections? For some, there have been immediate illegal reconnections. Organisation and mobilisation around these issues have provided the catalyst for new social movements to emerge (Ballard et al. 2006).

A key contention is that ‘the policy of cost recovery and the commodification of basic municipal services … has pitted local bureaucrats and politicians against communities’ (Ruiters 2002:42). In recent years, there have been about 8000 service delivery protests annually as the poor mobilise and militate against the neoliberal agenda (Mottiar and Bond 2012). Hence, there is compelling evidence that policy interventions and benefits are not reaching the poor. This is situation aggravated by rampant corruption and bureaucratic bungling.

Public–private partnerships and the privatization of services have far–reaching geographical implications. Under apartheid, the access to services had a distinct spatiality. Townships were inadequately serviced, if at all, while the racially privileged enjoyed access to services comparable to those in the first world (Turok 1994).

The provision of services under apartheid was also symbolic of the exclusionary nature of the system: black people were ‘outsiders’ in the urban system, a denial of their humanity and their citizenship. The privatisation of basic services militates against the aim to build an inclusive society. The provision of a minimum level of service to disadvantaged areas re-emphasises apartheid boundaries in the geography of service distribution (Bakker and Hemson 2000). It is becoming increasingly apparent that privatisation of basic services has a spatial impact which is accentuated by the spatial impress of apartheid.

While some new urban policies, procedures and processes were developed since 1994, a major challenge has been weak implementation, and perhaps the lack of political will to do so: ‘Since the end of apartheid there has been much experimentation with spatial initiatives, but without any overarching vision or policy framework’ (Todes and Turok 2017:1).

6 Conclusion

The present South African city form is a hybrid product of the colonial and formal apartheid discourse that ordained urban spaces as the domain of the white race. Initially, alternate urban planning strategies were influenced by the RDP, which was perceived to be ambitious and utopian. Although the UDS was enthusiastically welcomed by the private sector, there were concerns that it was too market-oriented and was a departure from the RDP. The focus on market-led urban development reached greater heights with the GEAR policy. GEAR’s neoliberal orientation was criticised as it would only address the needs of big business and foreign investors, and the gap between the rich and poor would widen.

The implementation of GEAR in cities was facilitated by the UDF and the White Paper on Local Government. Great emphasis was placed on local economic development strategies and public–private partnerships in delivering services. However, a major issue was whether the poor would benefit from such partnerships. The White Paper set the foundation for a new developmental local government system with an emphasis on integrated development strategies. A stronger spatial policy focus emerged in the second democratic decade with the NSDP, NDP and IUDF.

An analysis of contemporary urban realities revealed that while some desegregation of the apartheid city was taking place within the inner city and on the fringes of affluent suburbs, the geography of apartheid was being reinforced in the apartheid era. Decades of institutionalised segregation in South Africa will not be eliminated overnight. Segregation has been deeply entrenched in the social fabric, and is further reinforced by the socio-economic differences between blacks and whites. Also, the spatial inscription of class is becoming an increasingly conspicuous feature of South African urban space. A major problem was that institutional approaches to urban planning were poorly coordinated between central, provincial and local levels.