Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
Annexe AA1
The Inner City of Johannesburg Boundary and Definitions
LIST OF TOWNSHIPS (OR PORTIONS OF TOWNSHIPS) WITHIN THE INNER CITY
BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG
(17 OCTOBER 2003)
BELLE-VUE
BELLEVUE EAST
BENROSE
BENROSE EXT 01
BENROSE EXT 02
BENROSE EXT 03
BENROSE EXT 04
BENROSE EXT 05
BENROSE EXT 06
BENROSE EXT 07
BENROSE EXT 08
BENROSE EXT 09
BENROSE EXT10
BENROSE EXT11
BENROSE EXT12
BENROSE EXT13
BENROSE EXT14
BENROSE EXT15
BEREA
BERTRAMS
BRAAMFONTEIN 53-IR (only portions of which are within boundary)
BURGHERSDORP (included in JOHANNESBURG)
BURGHERSDORP EXT 1
CHARLTON TERRACE
CITY AND SUBURBAN
CITY AND SUBURBAN EXT 01
CITY AND SUBURBAN EXT 02
CITY AND SUBURBAN EXT 03
CITY AND SUBURBAN EXT 04
CITY AND SUBURBAN EXT 05
CITY AND SUBURBAN EXT 07
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
LIST OF TOWNSHIPS (OR PORTIONS OF TOWNSHIPS) WITHIN THE INNER CITY
BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG
(17 OCTOBER 2003)
CITY AND SUBURBAN EXT 09
CITY AND SUBURBAN EXT10
CITY AND SUBURBAN INDUSTRIAL
CITY WEST
CROWN NORTH EXT 01
CROWN NORTH EXT 03
DENVER EXT 02
DENVER EXT 06
DOORNFONTEIN
DOORNFONTEIN 92-IR (only portions of which are within boundary)
DROSTE PARK
DROSTE PARK EXT 1
DROSTE PARK EXT 2
DROSTE PARK EXT 3
DROSTE PARK EXT 4
DROSTE PARK EXT 5
DROSTE PARK EXT 7
ELCEDES
FAIRVIEW
FERREIRAS DORP
FERREIRAS DORP EXT 01
FERREIRAS DORP EXT 02
FORDSBURG
HIGHLANDS
HILLBROW (included in JOHANNESBURG)
JEPPESTOWN
JEPPESTOWN SOUTH
JOHANNESBURG
JUDITH'S PAARL
LORENTZVILLE
MARSHALLS TOWN
MARSHALLS TOWN EXT 1
MARSHALLS TOWN EXT 2
NEW DOORNFONTEIN
NEWTOWN
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
LIST OF TOWNSHIPS (OR PORTIONS OF TOWNSHIPS) WITHIN THE INNER CITY
BOUNDARY OF THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG
(17 OCTOBER 2003)
NEWTOWN EXT 1
NORTH DOORNFONTEIN
ORIENTAL PLAZA 48-IR
PAGEVIEW
RANDVIEW
REYNOLDS VIEW
SALISBURY CLAIMS
SALISBURY CLAIMS EXT 1
SELBY EXT 19
SPES BONA
TROYEVILLE
VILLAGE MAIN
VILLAGE MAIN EXT 3
VREDEDORP
WEMMER
WESTGATE
WOLHUTER
YEOVILLE
Please note that this list excludes proposed townships not yet established (i.e. where rezoning may
be required, as these townships come on stream they will have to be incorporated into this list).
A further detailed list of individual erven within townships, where the whole township is not included
within the Inner City boundary – can be made available if required.
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Inner City Boundary (red line)
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Application: 10 June 2004
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Inner City (green line) and Region 8 (red line) boundaries
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Application: 10 June 2004
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Inner City Zones
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Application: 10 June 2004
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Annexe AA2
Good and Bad Building Case Studies
Part One: Bad Buildings
Massyn Court, Cnr 118 Kerk / Mooi,
Johannesburg CBD (Inner City Zone 1)
Township and Erf Number
Johannesburg 941
Background
Massyn Court is a small residential block in the
CBD, and is located within the Fashion District
precinct development project. City officials consider
this currently to be the worst building in the city, and
it is a prime example of a ‘sinkhole’ property. It is
immediately adjacent to better quality property and
is undoubtedly having a negative effect on
investment decisions.
Current state
Building is still occupied, and extremely
overcrowded, with some tenants living in
storerooms. Shacks have been built on the
building’s balconies. All services have been cut off.
Internal light levels are low, and residents use
candles for light during the day, increasing fire
hazard risk. Residents use buckets for sanitation
purposes, which are emptied into stairwells and the
central court, adding to the accumulation of rubbish,
health and fire hazards.
Prospects for Regeneration
Building earmarked for closure.
Prospects for
refurbishment are very good – it is immediately next
to high-value well-maintained commercial premises,
and will benefit its location within the Fashion
District.
Valuation History
From a valuation of R600 000 in 1991, Massyn
Court is now valued at R480 000 – a drastic decline
in real terms.
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Application: 10 June 2004
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
Plastools Factory, 15-17 Hanau St / cnr Janie, Jeppestown (Inner City Zone 2)
Township and Erf Number
Jeppestown 1111 / 1112 / 391
Background
The property was formerly used for light manufacturing,
and is located within an industrial area. Layout, as befits
an industrial premises, consist of large open floor space,
narrow pedestrian access, large loading doors, small office
space and limited toilet facilities.
Current state
The building has been illegally occupied, highly
overcrowded, and an internal ‘informal settlement’
established. In addition to bachelor tenants, there are also
families who have relocated here to be near their menfolk
who live in the nearby Jeppe hostels. There are over 40
children aged 2-4 years on the premises. There are 133
shack structures within the building, constructed from
particleboard and plastic sheet. The premises are
regulated by a ‘landlord/manager’, who collects rentals
from the tenants. Rents as reported by the illegal tenants
vary from R170 to R300 per person per month.
Water and sanitation are still working but highly
inadequate, and electricity has been provided by illegal
and dangerous connections into the industrial phase
supply, and is in contact with the wood and plastic used in
the shacks.
Internal light levels are low, and residents
use candles for light, and primus/paraffin stoves for
cooking. As a result of this, the shack materials and
inadequate access for the number of families living in the
building, the fire hazard is extremely high. There is only
one exit, which is locked at night.
The City Council in March 2003 warned the owners Jeppe
Industrial Properties, that the building must be brought into legal and safety compliance. Ultimately,
no action was taken by the owners, and the building is now subject to legal proceedings and will be
eventually closed by the Council.
Prospects for Regeneration
Building earmarked for closure. Prospects for refurbishment are positive, given it is demonstrably
well-located for residential purposes
Valuation History
From a valuation of R570 000 in 1996, the property is now valued at R480 000, a very significant
decline in real terms.
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
52 Bird Street, Mayfair (Inner City Zone 3)
Township and Erf Number
Mayfair / 686
Background
The property is a three-storey apartment block in the
residential area of Mayfair, and is adjacent to the
local Salvation Army hall. It has recently been
identified as a potentially bad building
Current State
The property comprises 15 apartments and is
overcrowded. There is serious dilapidation of the
building fabric, with the roof, gutters and downpipes
falling into disrepair.
Domestic waste is
accumulating within the building curtilage, and
constitutes an environmental health hazard
Regeneration Prospects
The property will be subject to enforcement action
by the City Council. It is a potential ‘sinkhole’ that,
without intervention, is likely to have a negative
impact
on
surrounding
properties
and
neighbourhood.
Depending on the degree of
refurbishment required, this property is a likely
candidate for the UDZ tax incentive
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Application: 10 June 2004
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
Crest Hill, 15 Pietersen Street / cnr Twist, Hillbrow (Inner City Zone 4)
Township and Erf Number
Joubert Park 4922
Background
Crest Hill is a residential building of 12 stories including ground
floor. The property comprises 216 bachelor flats, largely occupied
by families.
Current state
Some flats have been vandalised and gutted. Domestic rubbish is
stored on access landings, and there is water penetration along all
pipe lines, causing rotting concrete and deterioration of fabric. The
basement is now flooded and provides a breeding ground for
vermin. The fire escape below the sixth floor is locked. External
fire water points are choked, vandalised and unusable. The
access staircase on the sixth floor has collapsed, and the remains
of stair flights have been removed causing a structural pressure
point on the external wall. This is now structurally unsound, with
force transmitted to the external fascia causing crumpling under
pressure. The stairwell tower now in danger of collapse.
The City Council issued a first warning in September 2003 on fire
safety and environmental health grounds. The building owners
have not complied and the building is now earmarked for closure.
Prospects for Regeneration
The building is currently occupied, and will need to be cleared
before refurbishment can begin. Estimated refurbishment cost is R
5 000 000. The property is included in the Better Buildings
Programme, under which prospects for regeneration are positive.
The Johannesburg Housing Company has expressed an interest in
purchasing this property. The JHC’s Lake Success project is in a
nearby block, and the company has also recently purchased the
Rondebosch Hotel which is adjacent to Crest Hill. The actions of
the JHC are creating a precinct of refurbished, well-managed
buildings in which Crest Hill is likely to be the next addition.
Valuation History
Crest Hill was valued at R2 390 000 in 1991. It is currently valued
(2001 valuation roll) at R 1 960 000, a major decline in real terms.
Such is the state of this property that is likely to be auctioned at a
peppercorn price.
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
Good and Bad Building Case Studies
Part Two: Good Buildings
Carlton Tower, 150 Commissioner St, Johannesburg (Inner City Zone 1)
Township and Erf Number
Johannesburg 1120 / 1126
Background
The Carlton Centre complex was the biggest single stage mixeduse project constructed in South Africa when it is was built in
1973 by a consortium of local and US-based developers. The
Carlton Tower is part of a complex that includes the Carlton
Hotel, a large shopping area of several levels, and the inner city's
biggest parking garage. The Tower is Africa's tallest building at
50 stories (222 metres), and is seen as the measure of
confidence and investment in the Johannesburg Inner City.
The building has a replacement value of R1.3bn. In the mid-90s,
the property was vacated and the Carlton Hotel, once
Johannesburg's most prestigious five star hotel, mothballed. The
complex remained empty until 1999 when Transnet bought it for
R33 million from Anglo American Properties. It had been on the
market for two years.
Current state
The Tower is now 98% occupied. Transnet moved from their
Parktown and Braamfontein offices and occupy 60% of the office
space. Other tenants include the Department of Justice, Business
Against Crime, attorneys, doctors, engineers, insurance
companies, travel and property consultants and a computer
school. The key to its success has been a concentrated effort to
improve security through the installation of security guards, anticrime video cameras, and the establishment of a City
Improvement District for the precinct.
Regeneration Impact
In addition to the Tower, the Carlton shopping centre is now over
80% full. Transnet is now conducting feasibility studies on the Carlton Hotel to assess possibilities of
re-opening it as a hotel, or converting it into office space. The impact of the re-birth of the Carlton
Tower is both economic and symbolic – it is one of the most important barometers of the prospects
for regeneration of the Inner City.
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
Jeppe Oval, 27 Browning St / cnr Jules St, Jeppestown (Inner City Zone 2)
Township and Erf Number
Jeppestown 627 / 630 / 634 / 2900
Background
The property was a greenfield site adjacent to the belt of
industrial and warehouse properties in Droste Park and
Benrose.
The site was chosen by the JHC for development due to
its proximity to schools, health facilities and recreation
space, as well as being a well-located site for employment
opportunities.
The JHC then spent R16m on land
purchase and construction of 15 new walk-up housing
blocks, which were completed in 1998
Current state
The Jeppe Oval complex comprises 240 units, the majority
of which are 2-bedroom flats. It is fully occupied and rent
payment levels are almost 100%.
The project was
developed using private finance as well as institutional
housing subsides, which means that there is a mix of low
and middle income occupants. The complex has 24-hour
security, an operational management committee, and has
contracted out cleaning and maintenance services to
create local employment. The JHC’s approach to tenant
and property management means that rent and service
charge arrears are not allowed to build up, and that there
is regular physical maintenance. The JHC is making a
return of 10-12% on its investment
Regeneration Impact
Jeppe Oval is a landmark example of inner city housing
development. It was the first residential development in
Johannesburg’s Inner City for 30 years, and the JHC’s first
major project. It raised the profile of housing opportunities
in the Inner City, and increased confidence among
developers that such projects were both feasible and
sustainable. Jeppe Oval set a standard for new-build
social housing projects and remains a benchmark
development.
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
The Mills @ Newtown, 66 Carr st / cnr Quinn St (Inner City Zone 3)
Township and Erf Number
Newtown 31-37
Background
The property was formerly the vacant Premier Milling building,
and was acquired by the Pat Flanagan / Urban Solutions
consortium in 2002. The building lies to the west of the M1, in
an area of light manufacturing and warehouse properties,
located between the Newtown Cultural Quarter and Fordsburg.
Current state
The consortium refurbished the building and opened it in 2003
as The Mills @ Newtown, an eight building complex
comprising 12 000m² floorspace. The first building has been
completed and occupied by an ad agency, architects practice,
graphic designers and a media company. It also houses a
coffee shop, a music workshop and the offices of Business &
Arts South Africa. The Mills has been developed on sound
financial lines as a commercial investment. The costs of entry
for tenants are competitive, office rentals
being around R 35/m² net and operating costs R 6 - R 7/m².
The consortium is now developing 9 loft residential units at a
starting price of R 500 000 apiece
Regeneration Impact
The Mills was the first major commercial regeneration project
following the upgrading of the Newtown Cultural Quarter, and
demonstrates the positive impact of such ‘ripple-pond’
investments. The area’s streetscape has been improved by
the City Council with parking bays and street sculpture. With
this environmental upgrade, and a successful pioneering
example in The Mills, the area is set to benefit from the next
wave of property improvement as developer attention turns its
way.
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
Lake Success, cnr Pietersen / Edith Cavell Sts, Hillbrow (Inner City Zone 4)
Township and Erf No
Johannesburg 4393
Background
Prior to 2000 Lake Success had been
allowed to deteriorate by its owner, and
had been abandoned. The lift motors
had been stolen, flat units had been
vandalized, and the sewerage system
was broken. Raw sewage had spilled
onto the basement floor and caused the
parking basement to collapse.
The
building was extremely overcrowded,
with up to 8 tenants per bachelor flat.
The property was acquired by the
Johannesburg Housing Company (JHC)
for R 670 000. A further R 6.5 million
was spent on refurbishment.
Current state
The JHC has now restored the property
to provide 145 self-contained bachelor
units and 11 rooftop rooms with shared
ablutions. It is fully occupied and rent
payment levels are almost 100%. The
building has 24-hour security, an
operational management committee,
and has contracted out cleaning and
maintenance services to create local
employment. The JHC is making a
return of 14-15% on its investment.
Regeneration Impact
Lake Success is a striking example of a
ripple-pond investment is defined under
the Inner City Regeneration Strategy.
The JHC strengthens this approach by
seeking to acquire properties in a
precinct so that the external environment can also be more broadly impacted on. As a result, the
JHC has purchased the Rondebosch Hotel, a building opposite Lake Success, which was closed and
included by the City Council in the Better Buildings Programme. In addition, the JHC is in the
process of purchasing Crest Hill, which is in the same block (see Crest Hill case study in Section
One).
Valuation History
At the time of purchase, the building was valued at R245 000 by the JHC and R1.2m by the owner.
It was purchased for R 670 000. The property is now valued at R7.0 million.
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
Annexe AA3
Strategy, Policy and Programme Documents for the Inner City











Vision for the Inner City (1997)
Economic Development Framework of Greater Johannesburg (1999)
Inner City Spatial Framework (1999)
Inner City Economic Development Framework 1999
City Centre Development Framework 2000
Local Integrated Development Plan (2001)
Inner City Urban Renewal Strategy (Inner City Task Force) 2001
Johannesburg 2030 (2002)
Integrated Development Plan and Regional Spatial Development Framework (2003)
Inner City Regeneration Strategy (2003)
Integrated Transport Plan (2003)
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
Annexe AA4
Current Precinct Development Initiatives in the Inner City
AA4.1 Ripple Pond Investments to promote economic growth
Agency
Johannesburg Development Agency
Johannesburg Development Agency
Johannesburg Development Agency
Johannesburg Development Agency
Johannesburg Development Agency
Johannesburg Development Agency
Johannesburg Development Agency
Johannesburg Development Agency
Johannesburg Development Agency
Johannesburg Development Agency
Johannesburg Development Agency
Johannesburg Development Agency
Johannesburg Development Agency
Gauteng Provincial Government
City Of Johannesburg Council
Private Sector
Private Sector
Precinct
Constitution Hill
Braamfontein Regeneration Corridor
Newtown Cultural Precinct
Jeppestown Regeneration Precinct
Hillbrow Health Precinct
Yeoville Main Street
Faraday Station Precinct
Fashion District
Jewellery Precinct
High Court Precinct
Chinatown
Medical Precincts
Greater Ellis Park / Bertrams / Doornforntein
Kopanong Government Precinct
Hillbrow-Berea Regeneration Areas
Main Street/Fox Street Upgrade
SAPPI Precinct, Braamfontein
AA4.2 Precinct developments to address investment ‘Sinkholes’
City Of Johannesburg Council
Greater Joubert Park Precinct
AA4.3 Precinct developments in Improving Urban Management: Central
Johannesburg Partnership City and Business Improvement Districts
Precinct Name
Central
Southwestern
Northern
Newtown
Legislature
Transnet Safety Corridors
Constitution Hill & Civic Centre
Fashion District
Benrose Industrial
Ellis Park/New Doornfontein
Braamfontein
Legal Precinct
Retail Precinct
Status
Voluntary CID being processed into statutory bodies
Voluntary CID being processed into statutory bodies
Current voluntary CID
Current voluntary CID
Current voluntary CID
Current voluntary CID
Current voluntary CID
Planned/under consideration
Planned/under consideration
Planned/under consideration
Planned/under consideration
Proposal placed before Provincial Government for finance
In place
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
Annexe AA5
AA5 Current City-led Institutional Arrangements for the Inner City
The institutional arrangements within the CoJ are designed to maximise participation from the variety
of agencies active in regeneration of the Inner City, while ensuring a close connection to the
decision-making structures of the council.
AA5.1 Policy, Oversight and Decision-making Structures
Mayoral Committee
This structure comprises CoJ Councillors, and receives reports and recommendations for decision
from the Inner City Portfolio Committee (Section 80)
Inner City Portfolio Committee (Section 80)
This structure comprises CoJ Councillors, and has the key objectives to:



To promote the realisation of the Vision for the Inner City of Johannesburg
To develop, and monitor the implementation of, appropriate policies, strategies, programmes
and projects for the economic and social development of the inner city
To promote and market the inner City of Johannesburg
The Inner City Committee has decision-making powers within clearly defined delegations.
Inner City Advisory Committee (Section 79)
The Inner City Advisory Committee shares the same objectives as the Inner City Committee, and
has the following membership:









The Member of the Mayoral Committee responsible for the Inner City;
Relevant Ward Councillors and PR Councillors with responsibility for the Inner City;
The Johannesburg Inner City Business Coalition;
The Johannesburg Inner City Community Forum;
Representatives from the Council’s utilities and agencies, the Metropolitan Trading Company
(Pty) Ltd and the Johannesburg Development Agency (Pty) Ltd;
Representatives from the Association of Social Housing Organisations and other relevant NGOs
such as the Property Owners and Managing Agents Association
Representatives of Provincial Government;
Representatives of the Provincial Legislature, and;
Higher education institutions
The Inner City Advisory Committee has powers to advise on issues and make recommendations to
the Inner City Committee for consideration.
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
Inner City Strategy Working Group
The Inner City Strategy Working Group has the responsibility to:




Oversee and monitor implementation of the Inner City Regeneration Strategy, checking progress
against activities identified in the Inner City Business Plan
Periodically review The Inner City Regeneration Strategy and Inner City Business Plan
Invite representatives from wider stakeholder groups as and when required
Report on a regular basis to the Mayoral Committee directly and the Inner City Committees
(Section 79 and 80)
The membership of the Inner City Strategy Working Group consists of:





The Member of the Mayoral Committee responsible for the Inner City
The Regional Director of CoJ Region 8 Office
The Director of the CoJ Economic Development Unit
The Chief Executive Officer of the Johannesburg Development Agency
Or their respective nominated representatives as appropriate
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
Annexe AA6
AA6 IDP Key Performance Areas Inner City 2003/04
Department
Focus area / Target by end of 2003/04
Finance & Economic Development
Nodal support programmes
Inner City sector programmes
Inner City tourism strategy
Inner City informal trading areas
Greater Joubert Park
Jewellery; Sports and events
Developed and implemented
Identified, approved and planned
Development Planning, Transportation & Environment
By-law enforcement
Successful action taken against 10 additional bad buildings
Inner City Transport System
Development Inner City Distribution System
Corporate Services
By-law enforcement support programme
Commencement of Municipal Court
Housing
High density/inner city housing units
Bad buildings audit
Transitional shelter
3 000 new units built
100% completion
1 project complete
Social development
Street children linked to formal training
Street children linked to benefit grants
Arts, Culture & Heritage
CBD heritage buildings surveyed
Johannesburg Art Gallery upgrade
Visits to Council-owned facilities
100
40% of all street children
90
Refurbishment complete
20% increase
Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department
Inner city crime prevention
By-law enforcement
CCTV roll-out
5% decrease across priority crime categories
100% increase in enforcement notices issued
Increase to 360 cameras across Inner City
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
Annexe AA7
AA7 Inner City Zones: Key Data
General Description per Zone
Zone Name
1
2
3
4
Office &
Business
Main
Suburbs
Included****
Description
of Zone
CBD, Marshalltown,
Braamfontein,
Newtown, City &
Suburban, etc.
Possible Impact of
UDZ Incentive
Location of most office
High. Large
buildings. Some signs of
institutional
regeneration by public & private taxpayers. Formal
sectors, e.g. in Newtown,
partnerships
Braamfontein & parts of the
established. Focus of
CBD. Some large areas are in effort by CoJ &
high decay, especially to south, others. Some positive
east & northeast of CBD.
signs of market
interest in
redevelopment.
Manufactur- The manufacturing Generally large properties for Possibly medium,
ing & Indus- belt located along the manufacturing purposes. Many may vary from area
trial
northern side of the factories & industries. Portion to to area. Must be in
M2. Includes City
east & northeast being invaded conjunction with cityWest, Selby, parts of for residential purposes.
led programmes
Marshalltown,
directing conversion
Droste, Benrose, etc.
of light industrial
premises to
residential/mixed-use
developments to
cater for demand for
housing.
Fords-burg Vrededorp,
Largely mixed use. Includes
Less impact other
(plus)
Pageview,
Oriental Plaza, light scale
than in ex-industrial &
Fordsburg, etc.
manufacturing & residential.
warehousing areas to
immediate west of
Newtown, & west of
Oriental Plaza.
Incentive woulld
support emerging
market interest in the
area.
Residential Hillbrow, Berea,
High-to-medium rise, highHigh impact in high(plus)
Yeoville, Bellevue, density areas of Hillbrow, Berea density areas and
Bellevue-East,
& Yeoville. Medium-to-low rise, possibly slower to
Lorentzville, Judith's medium-to-high density areas achieve in lowerPaarl, Bertrams,
of Bellevue, Bellevue-East,
density areas, as
Doornfontein,
Lorentzville, Judith's Paarl,
owners tend to be
Troyeville, Fairview, Bertrams, Doornfontein,
individuals rather
Jeppestown,
Troyeville, Fairview,
than institutional
Bertrams and Ellis Jeppestown, etc. Includes Ellis ones. Incentive would
Park.
Park & Bertrams area.Also
support strong,
includes elements of industrial emerging market
floorspace in areas such as
interest especially
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Size
Erven**
Ha
As
No
As
% of
% of
total
total
Inner
Inner
City
City
502
28 4,212
24
417
23 2,489
14
118
7 1,858
11
749
42 8,856
51
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Zone Name
Main
Suburbs
Included****
Application: 10 June 2004
Description
of Zone
Possible Impact of
UDZ Incentive
Size
Ha
As
% of
total
Inner
City
No
As
% of
total
Inner
City
102
-
126
-
100 17,415
100
Bertrams, Doornfontein, Ellis
Park, Troyville, etc.
5
from housing
associations and
rental housing
developers &
managers.
Vacant or areas used for parks N/a
or koppies & railway functions
Erven**
Rail & Park Excluded from
areas****** application area
All
1,786
Rates per Zone
Zone
Monthly Rates
July 2000
1
2
3
4
5
All
R
R
R
R
R
Feb 2004
Value
As % of
total Inner
City
16,777,051
2,682,557
2,107,322
2,524,522
24,091,452
70
11
9
10
100
R
R
R
R
R
Value As % of
total
Inner
City
11,345,988
63
2,639,769
15
2,064,414
12
1,892,378
11
17,942,549
100
R
R
R
R
R
Difference
% Decline
5,431,063
42,788
42,908
632,144
6,148,903
32
2
2
25
26
Residential Information per Zone
Zone
Households
Population
EAP*
1
19,691
58,163
40,319
2
3
1,280
1,210
3,559
4,113
2,382
2,178
4
5
All
50,266
72,447
141,770
207,605
95,674
140,552
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Urban Development Zone Tax Incentive Annexes
Application: 10 June 2004
Areas per function per Zone
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
All
Retail
Area
(m²)
Office
Area
(m²)
Industrial
Stand
Area
(m²)
Commercial
Area
(GLA)
Subtotal
Area
Per
Zone
868,307
58,905
15,940
140,415
1,083,567
2,075,236
88,328
731
115,870
2,280,165
929,806
1,486,167
216,431
1,063,265
3,695,669
89,088
34,264
90,358
226,773
440,482
3,962,436
1,667,665
323,460
1,546,323
7,499,884
Employment Profile per Zone
Zone
Retail
Workers
1
2
3
4
5
All
26,312
1,785
483
4,255
32,835
No of workers per function
Office
Industrial CommOther
Workers
Workers
ercial
Workers
Workers
103,762
4,416
37
5,794
114,008
2,657
4,246
618
3,038
10,559
119
46
120
302
587
18,485
5,395
848
18,492
43,221
* Economically Active Population
** Formal & informal employment
*** Source: Joburg Land Use & Socio-Economic Report, 2004, Plan Associates for CoJ
**** Note this is not a definitive list
***** Note Inner City area WITH Zone 5 is 1,888 hectares in extent
****** AS per revenue information in February 2004, CoJ
Department of Finance and Economic Development
(Final Submission)
Subtotal
Workers
Per
Zone
151,335
15,888
2,107
31,881
201,211
Employment Summary
Employed** Unemployed
151,335
15,888
2,107
31,881
201,211
31,525
2,991
626
31,903
67,045