160 years of Cape Town?
Inputs into the IDP
The City of Cape Town’s IDP input period closes tomorrow (13th January). As far as I understand, once there is a draft IDP, there will be another opportunity to comment on its substance.
I have participated in the survey and also submitted the below comment. I encourage people to get involved and participate in whatever ways your capacity allows.
I believe that many of the priorities articulated for the City are broadly in line with what is needed, however the “proof” will be in the detail of the actions planned, budgets aligned and capacity dedicated towards them. There may also be some critical gaps.
For this reason I look forward to the opportunity to engage more substantively on a draft document rather than just complete high-level surveys or submit comments - which would need to be the length of a thesis to cover every issue the City faces in detail in order to pre-emptively cover everything I hope will be in the IDP.
Rather, I am structuring my initial input in terms of principles that I’d return to when faced with a draft document, and a high level nod to a few issues I’d hope to see covered. Perhaps these are helpful to the authors of the IDP in the interim.
Where are we going?
Painting by James Ford, 1899, of what he thought Cape Town would look like in 1999.
Cape Town’s progress over the last 100 years has included some globally ambitious projects - reclaiming the foreshore, expanding rail networks, growing the economy into finance sectors among them. Of course, the biggest project was the project of apartheid - implemented from Cape Town as the legislative capital of South Africa and implemented on Cape Town - a globally shameful project, which ripped communities away from infrastructure and one another, and despite all the right language in planning documents, to today we have not overcome “the apartheid city” (spatially, structurally, arguably - even mentally).
The mandates of local government with regards to socio-economic and spatial development, infrastructural and service provision are relatively clear (although, on the former, the City has had a tendency to shy away from bold projects and hide behind “unfunded” mandates despite what the Constitution says overall about local governments’ responsibilities on socio-economic development).
The IDP presents a moment to reflect bigger than mandates and departments, however, and ask “what is the sum of all of this in terms of the progress of Cape Town? Where are we going? What is the spatial, social, economic and cultural world of Cape Town at the end of this political term, or in two or three terms from now?”
In 2027, Cape Town as a municipal entity (though when originally formed it was just the central city) will be 160 years old. What will we do to make the next five years significant in a 160 year story?
The Mother City. The Fairest Cape. The Cape of Storms. iKapa. Slaapstad. The Tale of Two Cities. The Divided City. The Looming Giant. The Tavern of the Seas. Melting Pot. Gateway to Africa. The Cape of Good Hope. The Cape of Good Intent.
A vision for the City needs to incorporate these stubborn identities, born of our shared realities - some asset-based and some painful - and offer something new, uniting, ambitious and plausible.
The IDP would need to balance pressures in the City to service what already exists (even if that is sprawl, informality, etc) while also putting in place resources to keep up with growth and allow some for a little ambition and progress. That is, a budget that balances:
“keeping the lights on” (maintenance and service delivery / existing service levels);
“new growth” (ideally in line with the SDF); and
“aspiration” or “transition” projects.
In the latter category, most Cities might place only very “high gloss” projects (new transport projects, new precincts, new technology and engagement methods, etc). However, in our context, with the transitions and challenges we face, we might also include some projects that relate to crisis transitions - such as governance and investment to pre-empt emergencies and city-wide disasters - hence not only referring to aspiration, but also transition more broadly.
Was it co-created?
This initial commenting period unfortunately fell over the festive season when many NGOs, development forums and ratepayers associations were in recess. While another commenting period is (understood to be) planned once a draft is available, there is nothing that stops ongoing engagement in the interim.
Cape Town has a rich ecosystem of SPVs, NGOs, community-based organisations, faith-based organisations, business forums etc who are hungry to be involved in the strategies and actions that make this city work.
There are many creative ways to enrol the inputs of residents:
Focus groups with organisations, run by officials and/or councillors
Surveys at places where people are queuing (about that, what are doing about those queues for basic services?)
Engagements at high schools - after all, they will inherit the “progress” we offer & are the next generation of active citizenry
It may be helpful to prioritise engagements around new ideas, or those portfolios that require the most work in terms of further prioritisation or refinement from concept to actions.
Is it Integrated?
An Integrated Development Plan needs to be more than just a wish list, and more than just a set of silo’d budgets to truly progress a City’s development.
A strong IDP at the end of this process will stack the levers of different departments in meaningful ways towards shared objectives - spatially, economically and socially. It will demonstrate that the City as a whole understands how the actions of one department work to contribute to, or potentially detract from the objectives of another, and how those dependencies (be they sequencing, or impact risks) are managed structurally or otherwise.
It may be helpful to test the City’s biggest priorities for sensitivity against a) rolled over business as usual work we almost forget we do; b) new work that can disrupt (and vice versa), and c) opportunities to develop programmes where there are connections (in space, time, resourcing or outcome).
Is it Developmental?
The overall outcomes of the City’s budget need to be developmental. With unemployment, informality, climate change risks, gender based violence and gang violence, homelessness, income inequality and other socio-economic stresses/crises where they are, every priority of the City has to have a clear developmental outcome.
This should be based not only on existing policy and good practices in the development fields, but also on good data, deliberative diagnostics, and evidence of some application of “city math” in terms of an understanding of scales of need, scaling of networks and systems, and likelihood of impactful spend (also considered against household and business ability to pay/suitable financing mechanisms).
Hardcore City Math. Or follow #CityMath on twitter for more fun.
For example, what is the “city math” of spending an estimated R750m on homelessness in Cape Town according to recent studies? Is that spend developmental and impactful in solving the problem and need?
Is it a Plan?
If I’m honest ,I've seen some projects in the City get hung to IDP pillars in quite abstract and vague ways. Almost anything is attributed to “Inclusive City” or “Caring City” etc - just tick the box and move on.
The IDP needs to be clear in how the City wants to progress its developmental outcomes, and the actual plan linked to that. Not wishlists and vague statements with twenty two bullet lists of suitcase terms where any reader can decide what they think will actually be happening.
Prioritise programmatic areas, with clear projects, linked to performance management. Allow, however, for adaptive programme management within those priority areas: use foresight, data, deliberation, and feedback (including from communities) to adjust plans within the 5 year period. The IDP can outline what some of these feedback opportunities might look like.
What do we need to stop doing?
The IDP should also make it clear to residents what the City intends to stop doing. If prioritisations and trade-offs are being made, this should be made explicit so that communities are fully aware of these and have an opportunity to comment on this. It should not occur silently or by gradual erosion of quality or access. What I’d like to see
More equitable public spaces, for one, including at coastal areas.
There are many things I’ll be looking for in the IDP, most of which I’ve written about in previous commenting periods or had the privilege of access to City teams to talk to. Very briefly, key priorities for me include:
Intervening in the land-transport market through implementing the SDF strictly, investing in services and placemaking around public transit interchanges, and well-located infrastructure that recognises all users of the city. There are also significant public open spaces and coastal assets that are under-developed, poorly maintained or managed that result in a public-space, leisure and investment deficit for many communities. The next five years of progress can see significant investment in pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, dignified waiting spaces for users of minibus, bus and rail transport, a wide roll out of public ablutions and facilities that encourage life in the public realm - and private investment that follows where people go.
For goodness sake, make the RiverClub developers include the less than 1km extension to the MyCiti.
An expanded focus on services to informal settlements - inclusive not only of water and sanitation, but also social services and a clear indication that the City is geared to spend national grants intended for informal settlements upgrades. The next five years can see a significant improvement in the coverage of water, sanitation and street lights in informal settlements, and several plan-to-completion upgrade projects that go further than those basic amenities with re-blocking, public squares, and the introduction of 2nd tier public facilities.
A commitment on alternative service delivery (as a part of the energy commitments as well as other services). The next five years can see not only more sophisticated means of maintaining existing infrastructure and engaging citizens, but exploring new technologies and regulatory tools. At a “project level” this can be integrated into areas like 1 & 2 above, but systemically would require more work by the future planning team.
A commitment on homelessness. The cost of doing nothing here is too high. The narrow approaches and cause-effect beliefs are outdated. The public demand regardless of ideology is undeniable. The next five years can see the City pivot from narrow focus on once-size fits all shelters, to a network of care inclusive of supportive housing, substance abuse and mental health programmes in line with emergent local success stories and global best practice.
Clear articulation of how the City will advance its digital and data strategies. This is not about evidence that the data capabilities of the City have been used in the crafting of the IDP, but an articulation of how these capabilities will be further institutionalized, and potentially how the City might advance towards a city as a platform (I’m not sure yet if anyone is ready to go as far as CityCrypto…). The next five years offer a make-or-break period where residents will expect the City to be digitally engaged, share transparent intelligence and leave no resident behind.
Rethinking the approach to CIDs and urban management, and expanding urban management models to areas currently left behind. The recent announcements to do away with the urban management directorate leave some questions unanswered with regards to where these functions will reside, and what the strategies and plans are for equalising the quality and standards of day to day urban management across different parts of the City. This is critical to quality of life as well as business environment. The next five years is ample time to implement long-shelved and fiddled with plans and ideas on “CID-lites”, “MURP”, etc, in this regard.
Leaning in to co-governance on rail recovery and other modes of transport. The City’s transport plans need to recognise that the City does not (yet and may not ever or in the next five years) have all the direct controls that it desires. It also needs to recognise that there will always be uncertainty in terms of technology, demand patterns, and shocks. The next five years need to strengthen the City’s capacity to to co-govern in this space, to learn about other modes of transport where it does not historically have expertise, to leverage its mandates to support public transport (see point 1), and to develop foresight, regulatory and co-investment muscle through specific projects (be they a new modal introduction, or a new route/link).
Recognition of users - for example, in the consideration of libraries, clinics, traffic licensing centres etc. Standard metrics of access are often not applicable when we are talking about walkable distance for a child living in a gang area, as opposed to drivable distance, or when a facilities’ primary use is to give a person a place of safety, care or social meaning as opposed to whatever the welcome sign says. A commitment that recognises these assets and their potential palace-anchoring and socio-economic value is needed, and “city math” that seeks to direct value towards them, not quantify the drain on the fiscus. This point may be most valid when considering what might be about to be “stopped”, and rather ask - have we really measured the impact, do we have the context-appropriate measure of access, and have we got the right framing of value creation (short and long term)?
For all of this, as well as others I haven't touched on (I’ve had a lot of engagement on housing and economic development so haven’t included those, and for example, safety, which I believe is primarily an outcome of all of the above done well), the City has several economic, cultural, natural and governance assets to draw on and protect (and the IDP should include a focus on this).
The IDP is an institutional plan, but the Constitution defines local government as consisting of the community as well as the political and administrative structures. The IDP can, thus, incorporate networked governance assets into its thinking for further public participation not only in planning and feedback, but also in implementation.
Views my own. Photos by Peter Herring @PeterHerring