Abstracts

67 sexist future. It represents a vision for the fundamental transformation of South Africa” (Ministry, 1994). Under this program, the government pledged to build 1 million houses in 5 years, attempting to make cities “more compact and more integrated” (Newton & Schuermans, 2013, p. 580). The ANC also pledged to raise funding for housing from less than 2% to 5% of government expenditure in order to achieve the construction goal (Moolla et al., 2011, p. 139). Colloquially, RDP houses are understood to be government-distributed, formal housing units, which speaks to the expansiveness of the program. In 1997, the Department of Housing released an Urban Development Framework meant to inform the project. These new urban settlements were intended to be spatially and socioeconomically integrated, without discrimination and segregation, to enable people to make ideal residential and employment choices (Newton & Schuermans, 2013, p. 580). This, unfortunately, was not the reality of RDP. The units built during this time were small (average area of 36 m 2 ), composed of an open plan bedroom, living room, and kitchen and separate lavatory. Many of those houses constructed between 1994 and 1999 did not meet standard regulations. Moolla and colleagues (2011, p. 140) note that local municipalities and provincial governments all have different specifications for RDP housing units, which contributed to these discrepancies. Despite this governmental attempt to rectify and improve housing issues within the country, a number of complications surrounding the program subsequently arose. The ANC had ambitious goals for addressing housing disparities within South Africa; however, in spite of the aims, RDP was unsuccessful in multiple regards. RDP implementation left out a lot of people who should have benefited from this program. Many problems existed within the distribution of RDP houses and were exacerbated by this formal housing policy. Since 1994, approximately 3 million units have been delivered; however, of the homes built, around 610,000 reportedly need to be demolished and rebuilt, according to the National Home Builder Registration Council. This underscores the subpar quality of the units. The combined costs to fix these structural errors and other minor defects, as well as noncompliant construction, are estimated to be around R5.5B ($371M) (Levenson, 2014, pp. 14–16). RDP sought to supply as many subsidized houses as quickly as possible, which resulted in compromised quality (Newton & Schuermans, 2013, p. 580). There has been deep criticism regarding building standards, quality of the units, and lack of services within the housing developments (Moolla et al., 2011, p. 138). Many RDP properties are defined by poor infrastructure and lack of services. Due to design issues with the units themselves and the complications of relocation, many potential residents often opt to sell or rent their unit and remain in informal housing (Goebel, 2007, p. 292). Sometimes this dissatisfaction and frustration can be seen through a rise in protests among unsatisfied RDP residents (Levenson, 2014, p. 19). This was the case in Cape Town’s Cape Flats, where many District Six residents were placed. Moreover, the case of Cape Flats is a display of the cyclical nature of marginalization and RDP’s failure to break that cycle of disadvantage. With respect to Cape Flats, but more generally as well, RDP housing has unintentionally reasserted issues within the landscape of housing by re-displacing already historically marginalized populations, thereby further enhancing already intense residential segregation. For many black and colored South Africans, land has ancestral roots and connections, which might make leaving particular spaces challenging. Many people who have adapted and built neighborhoods in the places to which they were previously relegated through segregation might not want to be forced yet again to uproot and leave their communities. Moreover, sometimes accepting RDP housing forces families to relocate and increases the cost of travel to employment, which already is a large barrier for low- income South Africans (Levenson, 2014, p. 16). Low-income black and colored South Africans who accept RDP units are placed in sectioned ghettos on the outside of cities, re- inscribing racial segregation in an unforeseen but harmful way. This further displacement may have other financial barriers that come