Cities to replace informal settlements

[LazyLion]

The building of new cities in Gauteng will address the mushrooming of informal settlements, human settlements MEC Jacob Mamabolo said on Wednesday.

The provincial government had decided to build new cities where industries and human settlements would be side by side, he said.

"This new approach will allow us to move people close to their places of work and allow them to spend less time commuting between work and their place of residence.

"We are doing away with exclusive poverty-stricken RDP housing projects by integrating factories, industries and human settlements," he said in a statement.

Mamabolo said if government did not implement this new approach, it was not going to eradicate informal settlements.

"Our new strategy is that we also make land available with fully serviced stands to those who want to build their own houses. In this way we think we can be able to address the housing backlog and eradicate the informal settlements."

Mamabolo told Diepsloot residents on Tuesday night that government was going to build a new city, including 8400 houses, in Diepsloot East to address densification of the area.

The project was expected to start in April.


Source : Sapa /mm/ks/th/jje
Date : 25 Feb 2015 13:36

 

[The_Unbeliever]

Bad idea.

Population boom.

 

[JStrike]

Bad idea.

Population boom.

Why do you think this would cause a population boom?

 

[DreamKing]

new apartheid: #proudlyanc

 

[JStrike]

new apartheid: #proudlyanc

What now?

 

[Pitbull]

I see nothing wrong with this idea. Give people land and they can build themselves. Instead of giving them houses built on land for free...

 

[JStrike]

I see nothing wrong with this idea. Give people land and they can build themselves. Instead of giving them houses built on land for free...

And densification is sorely needed

 

[The_Unbeliever]

Bad idea.

Population boom.

Why do you think this would cause a population boom?

People living near work = less time travelling to/from work
= less money spent on travelling
= more time having sex.

 

[grok]

Who's going to pay for this? They don't even pay their electricity..

 

[Pitbull]

People living near work = less time travelling to/from work
= less money spent on travelling
= more time having sex.

This make me lol

 

[DreamKing]

What now?

.... put the rubbish into the rubbish bin, that is the right thing to do.

 

[JStrike]

.... put the rubbish into the rubbish bin, that is the right thing to do.

What do you mean?

 

[Maverick Jester]

People living near work = less time travelling to/from work
= less money spent on travelling
= more time having sex.

Though, it's a bad idea to simply want to house people closer to their places of work- that has a direct impact on the districts surrounding these areas without adequately upgrading the supporting infrastructure to accommodate (water, electricity, roads, etc). Which will be a tough ask of the government when they couldn't bother doing it for the people that live in informal settlements to begin with.

 

[saor]

I see nothing wrong with this idea. Give people land and they can build themselves. Instead of giving them houses built on land for free...

Or give those people a job to do in their community in exchange for a house/land.

 

[Albereth]

Water.

 

[falcon786]

Bad idea.

Population boom.

I think this is a great idea,there's no point in building kilometres of RDP houses and when you visit those areas you see the people are still living in poverty because the factories and industries etc are too far away for them to be able to travel to cheaply.

I've managed a relatively large workforce at a factory and if your staff don't have to travel big distances to get to work it helps boost productivity because of less fatigue and they end up with more money in their pockets rather than a large portion going into travelling expenses.

 

[JStrike]

I think this is a great idea,there's no point in building kilometres of RDP houses and when you visit those areas you see the people are still living in poverty because the factories and industries etc are too far away for them to be able to travel to cheaply.

I've managed a relatively large workforce at a factory and if your staff don't have to travel big distances to get to work it helps boost productivity because of less fatigue and they end up with more money in their pockets rather than a large portion going into travelling expenses.

A countries labour force living close to employment opportunities has a direct impact on economic growth.
WC and CT pushing this as well

 

[Vrotappel]

Apparently the search for industries next to which these cities can be build is a big stumbling block.

 

[Patrick_Hockstetter]

They should build massive residential tower blocks that can house like 100 / 200 families per block or more. It will save a lot of space.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

Another question - electricity. Where will this come from?