First Thing, Daily Maverick's flagship newsletter

Join the 230 000 South Africans who read First Thing newsletter.

We'd like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick

More specifically, we'd like those who can afford to pay to start paying. What it comes down to is whether or not you value Daily Maverick. Think of us in terms of your daily cappuccino from your favourite coffee shop. It costs around R35. That’s R1,050 per month on frothy milk. Don’t get us wrong, we’re almost exclusively fuelled by coffee. BUT maybe R200 of that R1,050 could go to the journalism that’s fighting for the country?

We don’t dictate how much we’d like our readers to contribute. After all, how much you value our work is subjective (and frankly, every amount helps). At R200, you get it back in Uber Eats and ride vouchers every month, but that’s just a suggestion. A little less than a week’s worth of cappuccinos.

We can't survive on hope and our own determination. Our country is going to be considerably worse off if we don’t have a strong, sustainable news media. If you’re rejigging your budgets, and it comes to choosing between frothy milk and Daily Maverick, we hope you might reconsider that cappuccino.

We need your help. And we’re not ashamed to ask for it.

Our mission is to Defend Truth. Join Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Bromwell Street: Residents want emergency accommodation...

South Africa


Bromwell Street: Residents want emergency accommodation near city centre

Bromwell Street residents who are facing eviction want the court to order the City of Cape Town to provide emergency accommodation near the inner city. (Archive photo: Ashraf Hendricks)

Bromwell Street residents are challenging the City of Cape Town’s provision of emergency and temporary housing. They want accommodation near the inner city where they currently live and work. The City argues that providing social or temporary housing in the inner city would take time.

First published by GroundUp

No social housing has been built near the inner city in Cape Town in the last four years, says advocate Sheldon Magardie.

Magardie is arguing in the Western Cape High Court in favour of a group of Woodstock residents facing eviction from their homes in Bromwell Street. The application was brought by the residents against the City of Cape Town. The residents are also supported by housing activists at Ndifuna Ukwazi and Reclaim the City.

The residents want the City to provide them with emergency housing in or near Woodstock. They also want the court to declare that the City’s housing programme is unconstitutional because it does not accommodate people who are at risk of homelessness due to evictions in the inner city.

The residents’ homes were bought by private developers, Woodstock Hub, in 2013 as part of Woodstock’s gentrification push. Meanwhile, the group had fought to remain in Woodstock.

On Monday, Magardie told the court that Woodstock and Salt River are historically black working class suburbs that resisted the imposition of the Group Areas Act. He said that by 2016, Cape Town had the third highest property price growth in the world. 

Woodstock had been identified by the City and Province as a site for private developer-led “urban regeneration”.

The Bromwell Street residents are long-term tenants. One 80-year-old resident has lived in her house her entire life. In March 2016, an eviction order was granted. The residents petitioned the City with the support of Ndifuna Ukwazi, as many of them would be left homeless by the eviction.

They were promised by then-mayor Patricia de Lille that they would have the first option on social housing units to be built in Woodstock and Salt River. However, only one of the Bromwell Street residents qualified for this social housing, said Magardie.

He said only a 42-unit building on Pickwick Street in Woodstock was constructed in 2017. People who had been living on state-owned land on Pine Road were moved into this building so the Pine Road land could be developed into social housing.

The Bromwell Street families were offered emergency accommodation in Wolwerivier, 30km away from their homes and jobs, and then land and building materials in Kampies, Phillipi, 21km away from Woodstock.

Magardie criticised the City’s inconsistent response to the two evictee groups. He said that the City’s insistence that emergency or transitional housing cannot be built in the inner city is undermined by the evidence of the Pickwick Street building.

Magardie questioned why the City had not planned emergency housing in the inner city when the negative consequences of gentrification were already evident. 

Magardie said that “if it was open to governments or the state to plead inability to comply, then rights would not be worth the paper they’re written on”.

Magardie asked the court to declare that there is a constitutional defect in this aspect of the City’s housing programme.

Advocate Karrisha Pillay, for the City of Cape Town, argued that the delivery of housing rights is constrained by access rights and was subject to the state’s available resources and is not an immediately realisable right.

Pillay said the City accepted there should be housing in and around the inner city. The City also accepted that the legacy of apartheid left a divided city that must be addressed.

Pillay argued that the consequence of creating transitional housing for the Bromwell Street residents was that the 240 housing units expected to be built on Pine Road and the 600 units for Salt River Market (yet to be developed) may not be completed in time.

She said the City wasn’t “closing the door” on emergency housing in the inner city, but that such housing would only come in time.

Pillay is continuing her arguments in court on Tuesday when advocate Ross Randall, for the Woodstock Hub, is also expected to address the court. DM



Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

No Comments, yet

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted