Social housing is essential but should it be rental-only?

Protesting for social housing across South Africa has been a long-standing, contentious issue. I recently wrote about the first inner-city affordable housing development announced by the Western Cape government in Cape Town’s city centre.

- Ash Müller

The Leeuloop Precinct Development will have about 840 residential units and consist of two towers on a 3 000m² erf owned by the city. The towers will have 18 to 20 storeys with retail on the ground floor.

Tower One will consist of 490 open market units, while Tower Two will have about 350 social housing units.

Funding for this project is a mix between private and public. Completion of this project is expected to be in 2027-28.

As far as sustainability goes, the plan is to have a four star green building, and level one (construction waste) net zero carbon certification from the Green Building Council of South Africa.

Leeuloop is one of three mixed-use developments that will tackle the issue of affordable housing in Cape Town. The other two are Founders Garden and Prestwich Precinct.

With more than 7000 apartments and 3300 businesses in the inner city, these developments, with an almost 50/50 split of social housing units, should make quite an impact.

This got me thinking about a thought-provoking question I was recently asked: "What's your opinion on the fact that social housing is rental only?"

It’s a simple question on the surface, but the answer digs deep into issues of policy, economics, empowerment and our country’s painful history of inequality. It brings into sharp focus the delicate balance between accessibility and opportunity, between preservation and progression.

First things first: social housing in South Africa is intentionally rental-based. It’s part of the policy framework designed to address a huge and ongoing housing shortage for lowto middle-income households.

People who qualify for social housing subsidies live in households that earn R3 000 to R22 000 a month. They are too “rich” to qualify for RDP housing but are not earning enough to qualify for bonds in the traditional property market. This group has long been squeezed out of ownership opportunities and quality rentals.