SHARED LEARNINGS FROM THE CITY
OF CAPE TOWN’S URBAN RENEWAL
PROGRAMME
Information and Knowledge Management
URP Meeting
29 June 2006
OUTLINE
1.
Introduction
•
•
Motivation
Scope
2.
Approach
3.
Findings for Shared Learning
4.
Putting Learning into Practice
5.
Questions
1. INTRODUCTION
•
Motivation
–
–
–
–
•
Gap identified - intellectual and knowledge based assets flowing from
URP (local level)
Experiences from a ‘ground-breaking initiative’ can provide learning
value
Providing a resource to inform adaptations and interventions in the
programme
Mid point in 10 year programme (2001-2011)
Scope
–
–
–
Not comprehensive evaluation of URP in KMP
Not an evaluation in terms of planned outcomes of URBP
Strategic effort to identify:
•
Aspects of URP that can contribute to learning, and
•
Experiences that could benefit CoCT and inter-governmental
coordination and relations
2. APPROACH
•
Evaluative Framework
•
Methodology
–
–
Principles & Approach to UR
Qualitative focus
Information sources:
•
•
–
Series of Interviews
Desktop survey (URP strategy
documents, nodal profiling
and reflective studies)
Limitations
•
•
Role-players outside
government
Line department inputs
Leading Questions
4.1
4.2
4.3
Themes
Challenges
Progress
Underlying Influences
‘Lessons’
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Themes for Evaluation and Knowledge Sharing
1.
Government Coordination and Alignment
2.
Community Engagement and Participation
3.
Piloting Innovative Initiatives and Partnerships
L
N
Plan /
strategy
…budget
Action
P
L
L
L
Coordination of action and
resources to increase
opportunity for synergies
and maximise impact
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Theme 1: Government Coordination and Alignment
Challenges
•
•
•
•
Links between strategy development and line budgeting
Collective coordinated budgeting (inter- & intra-sphere)
Prioritisation of & resource allocation to the URN (line departments)
Coordination between project planning & post implementation impacts for
‘servicing’ departments
Progress
•
•
•
•
IGR structures (e.g. MSF) long before IGRFA
Strategy developed to provide common basis (7 outcomes)
Project level coordination
URP unit…promise
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Theme 1: Government Coordination and Alignment
Influencing factors
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Theme 1: Government Coordination and Alignment
‘Lessons’
•
Strategy development as a means of promoting budgetary alignment
–
–
–
–
•
Coordination Structures
–
–
•
Necessary precondition to foster alignment but not sufficient
Useful platform but audience not always those necessary
(Lack of) Communication
–
•
Potentially powerful, but no clear common base for role-players;
Strategy
implementation alignment a challenge without strategy being attached to
clear action plan and agreed upon expenditure framework;
Budgeting process happens despite and removed from broad strategy development
process;
‘Alignment’ at detailed project level where implementation framework and budgeting linked
to strategy (e.g. local area design framework)
Precondition for duplication (occurred despite coordinating structures)
Managing tensions part of URP
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Theme 2: Community Engagement and Participation
Challenges
•
•
•
Clarity around roles, political structures – community/civic structures
tensions
Achieving shared direction within community organisations
Loss of a community organisation within URP
Progress
•
•
Deepened level of ‘community’ participation through structures and certain
projects
Civic structures managed to further UR – assist in mobilising funding
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Theme 2: Community Engagement and Participation
Influencing factors
•
(In)stability and Establishment Processes
–
Background MPDF
•
•
•
–
Background KDF
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rapid process of establishment (URP focus),
Initial clarity around role, overtaken by individuals used it as mechanism for own
agendas and gains
Role: ‘creation of monster’
Early 1990’s emerged ‘organic community driven’ collection of civil society
Strong developmental agenda
Were early challenges around legitimacy
NGO support (FCR)
Continued involvement of high placed individuals
Tensions: political agendas, rivalries and inter-organisational friction
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Theme 2: Community Engagement and Participation
‘Lessons’
•
Formation of community structures potential minefield
•
Working with existing structures (if present) less scope for upsetting
social networks and power relations
•
Cautious approach if need to form new structures, mechanisms to reduce
scope for ‘politicking’
•
Community engagement on Project basis vs ‘mega structures’
•
Structures can play potentially powerful role in furthering UR (case of KDF
and funding)
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Theme 3: Piloting Innovative Initiatives and Partnerships
Challenges and Progress
•
•
•
Securing/leveraging private sector investment
Innovative project management and approaches to secure public funding
Innovative forms community engagement
Case studies
•
•
•
Case 1: Khayelitsha Business District: Innovative partnerships to
Leverage Private Sector Investment
Case 2: Mitchells Plain Town Centre (CBD): Coordinating Intervention and
Public Spending
Case 3: Tafelsig Safety Audit and Precinct Development Planning
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Case 1: KBD - Innovative Partnerships to Leverage Private
Sector Investment
Background
•
•
Initiated late 1990s, 73ha vacant land, became 1 of 10 URP anchor projects
Range of public investment existing (e.g. magistrates offices, social
welfare) and planned
New private investment 17500m2 retail centre
•
Process
•
1999-2001 – “Foundations for development”
–
–
–
–
Planning, env scoping
Community engagement: stakeholders framework agreement & development
principles
Marketing
Cooperation agreement City and RMB
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Case 1: KBD - Innovative Partnerships to Leverage Private
Sector Investment
Process
•
2002-2003: “Toward Partnership Agreements”
–
New round of planning and agreements:
•
•
•
•
Urban Development Framework
Endorsed financial plan (funding arrangements)
Approved institutional framework (KCT controlling role and link to community)
2004-2005: Secure Partnerships and Implementation of the Retail Centre
–
–
KManco (owned by KCT acted as developer)
KManco - Number of agreements with stakeholders e.g.:
•
•
•
•
–
–
Land lease (KCT, City)
Loan agreement with RMB – one loan paid KManco reap benefits – community projects
Development and Management agreement with Future Growth
Reduced risk to community, greater on developer/contractor
Future Growth agreement with WBHO
Empowerment strategy (Zakhe Engineering)
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Case 1: KBD - Innovative Partnerships to Leverage Private
Sector Investment
KBD – Financial & Institutional Arrangements
Source: human, 2006
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Case 1: KBD - Innovative Partnerships to Leverage Private
Sector Investment
‘Lessons’
•
The need for a dedicated project champion
–
–
•
Resource intensive process (city perspective)
Context of resource constraints
Public investment and commitment required to leverage private
development
–
–
•
Public investment, land write down
Reduction of risk
Planning obstacles
–
–
Inflexibility in system of regulation of land uses
Access to centralised data for multitude of consultants – delays and errors:
•
•
Taxi facility built on retail centre erf,
MPC proposed over sewer but local office didn’t know about it
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Case 2: MPTC / CBD
Background
•
•
URP anchor project
Cluster of development projects:
–
–
–
–
Transport interchange phase 1
(Portland Taxi Rank & Market Space)
Transport interchange phase 2
(southern and northern rank, bus
terminus)
Market and public space
improvements
Mitchells Plain town centre extension
(northern site)
•
Public investment in infrastructure
used as a basis for response &
(re)investment by public & private
sector
•
Detailed planning flowing from MPDF,
2000
Public investment of R30m+
•
City of Cape Town, 2006
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Case 2: MPTC / CBD
‘Lessons’
•
Strong project level management enables coordination of funding
–
–
•
Interdepartmental PMT - 5 funding sources secured
One committed source ability to leverage others
Delegated decision making required on major projects
–
–
•
Nimble and rapid implementation
Cut own on unnecessary reporting (whilst following due process)
Individual ‘opportunism’
–
Official of line department seeing an opportunity and maximising urban renewal
‘tag’ …access to funding
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Organisational Models and Individual Action
“HIERARCHY”
Alignment and
“organisational”
thinking
Centralisation
Vertical
alignment
Source: Schmidt, 2006
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Organisational Models and Individual Action
Functional/Specialist Units
“MATRIX”
A
Horizontal
alignment
B
C
D
Alignment and
“organisational”
thinking
Projects
1
2
Source: Schmidt, 2006
3
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Theme 3: Piloting Innovative Initiatives and Partnerships
Organisational Models and Individual Action
Alignment and
“organisational”
thinking
“NETWORKED”
Source: Schmidt, 2006
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Case 3: Tafelsig Safety Audit & Precinct
Planning: Community involvement as a Basis
for Intervention
Background
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recognised by Cape Urban Renewal Strategy as focus
area (crime)
CoCT sponsored safety audit: understanding concerns
around safety and how relates to environment
Process of planning and design undertaken with
community involvement (as opposed to top down
process)
Framework developed into implementation and budgeting
strategies
Implementation of range of projects (youth & family
centre, housing development) guided by community
prioritisation
Improved control over public realm
Source: DAG
Source: Holm Jordaan
3. FINDINGS FOR SHARED LEARNING
Case 3: Tafelsig Safety Audit & Precinct Planning: Community
involvement as a Basis for Intervention
‘Lessons’
•
Community involvement and participation critical part of the
process
–
–
•
Beyond consultation toward understanding peoples’ reality
Responsive process i.t.o. infrastructure/service related intervention
and prioritisation
Secure funding
–
–
Highlighted as critical
Significant process of engagement – if funding to act not available
momentum amongst community would have been lost (“window of
opportunity”)
4. PUTTING LEARNING INTO PRACTICE
Perspectives and considerations: URP
•
Comprehensive/flawless plan vs. learning by doing/project based alignment?
•
Funding for URP and aligning resources: Existing streams vs. ‘top slicing’ vs. ‘ring
fencing’ for URP unit (implementation?)
…those with purse strings yield amount of power
•
IDP other mechanisms to build alignment vs enforced prioritisation through
scorecards?
•
UR unit potentials in fostering coordination but resource constraints?
•
Communication as the Key (new mechanisms?)
Information & Knowledge Management
•
Value of reflective practice, case based, fosters culture of learning within City and
beyond (e.g. of dignified spaces)
5. QUESTIONS
Questions & Comments
SHARED LEARNINGS FROM THE CITY
OF CAPE TOWN’S URBAN RENEWAL
PROGRAMME
Information and Knowledge Management
URP Meeting
Thank you
29 June 2006