Joe Slovo Phase 3 Low Income Housing Development: Sustainable Housing Delivery Lessons Learnt Document - December 2013 - CITY ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Low Income
Housing Development:
Sustainable Housing Delivery
Lessons Learnt Document
with funding from
December 2013
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013
CONTENTS
Project Details ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Purpose of Document .............................................................................................................................................................. 21
Overview of the energy efficiency regulations for housing in South Africa ............................................................................ 22
Lessons learnt from Joe Slovo Phase 3 Urban Design and Implementation ............................................................................ 23
The background to the Joe Slovo development .................................................................................................................. 23
Existing Settlement Profile............................................................................................................................................... 24
Joe Slovo Design Approach .................................................................................................................................................. 24
Current Subsidy Housing Built Order ............................................................................................................................... 24
Higher Density Options .................................................................................................................................................... 25
Communal areas, pedestrian friendly roads, paving, internal road design ..................................................................... 28
Infrastructure Learnings .................................................................................................................................................. 28
Financial assessment of Joe Slovo Phase 3 implementation. .......................................................................................... 31
Lessons learnt from the Joe Slovo Design........................................................................................................................ 32
Implementation approach ................................................................................................................................................... 33
Institutional framework ................................................................................................................................................... 33
Construction of complex buildings vs single dwellings .................................................................................................... 34
Lessons learnt from the Joe Slovo Construction site ....................................................................................................... 35
Community survey reflecting the attitude of Joe Slovo residents to the Urban Design component of the Development . 36
Lessons learnt from qualitative community survey – Urban Design ............................................................................... 39
Final Note – Joe Slovo Urban Design and Installation ......................................................................................................... 41
Lessons Learnt from Joe Slovo Phase 3 Energy Efficiency Interventions ................................................................................. 42
Overview .............................................................................................................................................................................. 42
Solar Water Heaters ............................................................................................................................................................ 43
Overview .......................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013
SWH – procurement through provincial tender .............................................................................................................. 44
SWH – installation ............................................................................................................................................................ 46
Household SWH performance, water usage patterns and related energy savings ......................................................... 51
Qualitative Survey Results – SWHs .................................................................................................................................. 54
Carbon possibilities for low income SWH installations.................................................................................................... 57
Household thermal Efficiency .............................................................................................................................................. 58
Quantitative thermal performance survey ...................................................................................................................... 58
Qualitative Survey results - Thermal efficiency ............................................................................................................... 79
Energy efficient lighting in Joe Slovo ................................................................................................................................... 83
Lessons learnt for efficient lighting ................................................................................................................................. 85
Mobility - Efficient transport ............................................................................................................................................... 85
Lessons learnt for mobility .............................................................................................................................................. 88
Overall community perception around the energy efficiency interventions ...................................................................... 89
Community Awareness Programme ........................................................................................................................................ 90
Lessons learnt from the Community Awareness Programme ............................................................................................. 96
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................... 97
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013
FIGURES Figure 1: Joe Slovo Phase 3 locality plan ................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 2: joe slovo Informal households .................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 3: Shack size analysis (Community organisation resource centre, 2009) ..................................................................... 24 Figure 4: population distribution (community organisation resource centre 2009) ............................................................... 24 Figure 5: typical built form configuration: one house one plot with poorly defined interfaces ............................................. 25 Figure 6: housing typology development towards densification ............................................................................................ 26 Figure 7: housing typology vs density ...................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 8: higher density attached units with courtyard configurations .................................................................................. 27 Figure 9: Proposed Built Order Configuration: Building Blocks of communal backyard spaces .............................................. 27 Figure 10: Site Development Plan, Phase 3A & 3B ................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 11: raised floor levels (left) and open stormwater channels (right) ............................................................................. 29 Figure 12: diverted stormwater channel to accommodate service manhole .......................................................................... 30 Figure 13: offset streetlight ..................................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 14: Mini substation in street ......................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 15: household perception of living in a double-storey house ...................................................................................... 36 Figure 16: Household perception of noise experienced from shared walls ............................................................................ 37 Figure 17: Household perception of safety within the home and community? ...................................................................... 37 Figure 18: Household use of the courtyard area Figure 19: Household use of courtyard area for daily activities ............. 38 Figure 20: Number of households utilizing shared open spaces ............................................................................................. 39 Figure 21: Purpose for which households used open spaces .................................................................................................. 39 Figure 22: Key energy efficient interventions in Joe Slovo Phase 3 house .............................................................................. 42 Figure 23: Solar water heaters installed at Joe Slovo Phase 3 ................................................................................................. 44 Figure 24: Aerial view of Joe Slovo Phase 3C with SWHs installed .......................................................................................... 47 Figure 25: Cherry picker lifting an installer onto the roof in Joe Slovo Phase 3C .................................................................... 48 Figure 26: SWH happy letter .................................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 27: SWH Beneficiary complaint form ............................................................................................................................ 51 Figure 28: Energy saved per household per month by orientation ......................................................................................... 52 Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013
Figure 29: Average daily hot water consumption .................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 30: Average energy added to each litre of hot water consumed by household .......................................................... 53 Figure 31: Impact of orientation on SWH performance .......................................................................................................... 54 Figure 32: Household perception of the frequency of provision of hot water during the winter and summer...................... 55 Figure 33: Household perception of the functionality of the solar water heater during the winter and summer ................. 55 Figure 34: Communuty perception of water heat from SWH ................................................................................................. 56 Figure 35: Household use of hot water use from SWH ........................................................................................................... 56 Figure 36: Household perception of owning a SWH ................................................................................................................ 57 Figure 37: Financial assessment of pursuing carbon credits for Joe Slovo Phase 3................................................................. 58 Figure 38: Average minimum and maximum outside temperatures in Joe Slovo and Delft ................................................... 63 Figure 39: Inside temperature by orientation ......................................................................................................................... 65 Figure 40: daily Inside temperature - east facing houses in winter ......................................................................................... 66 Figure 41: Inside temperatures by orientation - Summer ....................................................................................................... 68 Figure 42: Inside temperatures by orientation - Winter.......................................................................................................... 69 Figure 43: Inside temperature by orientation - Spring ............................................................................................................ 71 Figure 44: Inside temperature by orientation - Autumn ......................................................................................................... 72 Figure 45: Comparison of internal temperatures against external temperatures - summer .................................................. 73 Figure 46: Joe Slovo thermal performance by season and orientation ................................................................................... 75 Figure 47: Temperature differentials between upstairs and downstairs - Joe Slovo .............................................................. 76 Figure 48: Temperature differential between upstairs and downstairs – north facing - Summer .......................................... 76 Figure 49: Temperature differential between upstairs and downstairs – east facing - winter ............................................... 77 Figure 50: Examples of fluctuating temperatures between upstairs and downstairs in South and West facing households 79 Figure 51: Household perception of the temperature differences in new house vs old house (question asked in the initial summer survey )....................................................................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 52: Household perception of the temperature differences inside the house between the top and bottom storey during summer and winter ...................................................................................................................................................... 81 Figure 53: Household satisfaction with ceiling installation in the new home ......................................................................... 81 Figure 54: Household perception of the indoor temperature differences experienced during the summer and winter ....... 82 Figure 55: Household perception of the lifespan of CFLs vs Incandescent light bulbs ............................................................ 83 Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013
Figure 56: Replacement of CFLs by household since moving into new home ......................................................................... 83 Figure 57 :Household experience of CFLs compared to incandescent lightbulbs ................................................................... 84 Figure 58: Cost of CFLs vs incandescent light bulbs Figure 59: Household electricity consumption of CFLs vs incandescents 84 FIgure 60: Mode of transport used by respondents ................................................................................................................ 85 Figure 61: Mode of travel to work for the employed .............................................................................................................. 86 Figure 62: Length of travel time to work ................................................................................................................................. 86 Figure 63: Household mode of travel to school....................................................................................................................... 87 Figure 64: Time taken to travel to school by learners ............................................................................................................ 87 Figure 65: Household mode of travel to the shops ................................................................................................................ 88 Figure 66: Length of time taken to travel to the shops by households ................................................................................... 88 Figure 67: Household experience of the best energy efficiency intervention in the home over winter and summer ........... 89 Figure 68: How a SWH works and how overhead conditions affect SWH performance ......................................................... 90 Figure 69: Saving electricity and keeping water costs down ................................................................................................... 90 Figure 70: Spreading use of hot water over a day ................................................................................................................... 91 Figure 71: SWH safety .............................................................................................................................................................. 91 Figure 72: SWH Maintenance .................................................................................................................................................. 91 Figure 73: Household perception of the capacity of their solar water heater systems .......................................................... 92 Figure 74: General household attendance of SWH training workshop ................................................................................... 92 Figure 75: Household perception of the need for SWH training ............................................................................................. 92 Figure 76: Community perception of SWH training workshop ................................................................................................ 93 Figure 77: Ways in which household learnt how to operate a SWH ....................................................................................... 93 Figure 78: Household time of use of SWHs Figure 79: Household perception of the optimal time for SWH use ............. 94 Figure 80: Household use of bath water for purposes other than bathing ............................................................................ 94 Figure 81: Incidence of burns by household members from hot water produced by SWH .................................................... 95 Figure 82: Level of household awareness relating to the nature of hot water produced by a SWH ....................................... 95 Figure 83: Household knowledge of who to contact when problems with the SWH arise ..................................................... 96 Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013
PROJECT DETAILS
Project Title: The N2 Gateway Project, The Mainstreaming of Energy Efficiency in Low Income
Housing Pilot Project, funded by DANIDA
Lead Institution: National Department of Human Settlements,
Director-General: Thabane Zulu
Chief Director: William Jiyana, Stakeholder and IGR Co-ordination
Director: Ms Monika Glinzler, International Relations
Appointed Contractors:
Annie Orgill, Capacity: General Project Manager
Andrew Janisch: Sustainable Energy Africa (SEA ), Capacity: Energy Efficiency
and Sustainability Adviser
Implementing Western Cape Provincial Government of Human Settlements
Agent
Chief Director: Ray Rughubar, Implementation of Human Settlements
Project Management: Andreas Fourie, Malcolm Salida, Roberto Bellmuntschape
Policy Unit: Tracy Jooste, Eugene Visagie and Cassandra Gabriel
Tel: 021 483 4792
Project Manager: The Housing Development Agency
Project Management: Bosco Khoza, Brendan Abrahams, Gavin Jooste, Luxolo
Madubedube
Tel: 021 481 2900
Construction Consortium: Sobambisana with JSA Architects
Project The National Department of Human Settlement (NDHS)
Stakeholders:
The Western Cape Provincial Department of Human Settlements(WCPDHS)
The Danish International Development Assistance Agency (DANIDA)
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report sets out to provide the National Department of Human Settlements (NDHS) with key
learnings around the flagship Joe Slovo low income housing Development in Langa, Cape Town. This
development is of particular interest to the NDHS as it includes some of the more sustainable
elements of low income housing delivery which as yet are not typically implemented in RDP
developments. The impact of these elements has been captured in the report, in order to provide the
NDHS insight into the benefits and challenges that they bring.
The sustainable elements of Joe Slovo Phase 3 can best be described from two perspectives: urban
design and energy efficiency. These are described in more detail below.
i. Urban Design
The Joe Slovo development is centrally located in Cape Town. This is somewhat different to typical
low income housing projects which occur on the urban edge, far from work opportunities, shops,
educational facilities and public amenities. Joe Slovo in this sense applies the sustainable principle
of densification of an urban area, rather than increasing the city footprint on the periphery. The
additional benefits of this include improved access for residents, better potential for economic
growth in the area and a sense of integration into the city.
LOCALITY PLAN
Besides increasing the density of the city, as a development itself Joe Slovo accommodates nearly 3
times more households per hectare when compared to typical stand alone RDP households. One of
the results of this form of densification is that a large portion of the public space is pedestrianised,
and combined with the double storey cluster layout of the households, this provides a safer and more
integrated urban space for the community.
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013
PEDESTRIANISED PUBLIC SPACES WITH DOUBLE STOREY CLUSTER UNITS
ii. Energy efficiency
Joe Slovo incorporates several energy efficiency interventions. These interventions have the
benefit of improving the quality of life for the household while saving them money and reducing
the energy and carbon footprint of the development. The key energy efficiency intervention areas
implemented in Joe Slovo are:
a. Increased thermal efficiency when compared to a typical RDP household. This means that a
Joe Slovo household is more comfortable to live in throughout the year, being warmer in
winter and cooler in summer. Thermally efficient interventions found in the Joe Slovo
development include shared walls, insulated ceilings and a concrete slab which separates the
ground floor from the first floor. These moderate direct exposure to the elements, and
regulate the internal temperature of the household.
b. Sustainable water heating. Solar water heaters have been installed on every household in the
development, and provide up to 100l of free hot water to a household per day.
c. Efficient lighting. All households have been fitted with compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), and
solar powered LED spotlights have been provided for in the public spaces in the development
d. Efficient transport. The centralized location of the Joe Slovo development allows the residents
to enjoy shorter travel distances and reduced transport costs to work opportunities, schools
and shops. This also saves energy and reduces carbon emissions
This report analyses in detail the impact of the urban design and energy efficiency elements of the Joe
Slovo development mentioned above. The impact must be considered from several stakeholders’
perspectives: government, house recipient, contractors and the community at large. In so doing, a
full understanding of the impact of creating human settlements such as Joe Slovo can be achieved.
The information for this report has been gathered through community surveys, discussions with
government and contractors, quantitative data measurement and input from urban design experts.
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013
Through this process a clearer picture has been developed around the benefits and the challenges of
implementing a city integrated and energy efficient development such as Joe Slovo. Some information
gaps for further research have also been identified.
The remainder of this executive summary will provide a concise breakdown of the key learnings to
have come from the research conducted at Joe Slovo Phase 3 over the period July 2012-December
2013. As above, the analysis will approach the development firstly from an urban design perspective,
and then from an energy efficiency perspective.
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Urban Design
Design Characteristics:
The design of Joe Slovo Phase 3 needed to include the current requirement that RDP houses have to
have a piece of land allocated to them. In other words the design could not incorporate multi-storey
sectional title type buildings. Rather, each dwelling had to have a footprint on the ground. In order to
accommodate the demand for houses in the area, the area of this footprint had to be minimized to 20
square meters, and as such the only option available to provide the required 40 square meter house
was to build a second storey, and to connect these houses in building complexes. Each complex has a
communal back yard “courtyard”, and there are no private gardens. The emphasis of the design is on
shared pedestrianised public open spaces.
JOE SLOVO HOUSING TYPOLOGY
Design Advantages:
There are many urban design advantages to implementing a low income development such as Joe
Slovo Phase 3.
i. High residential densities appropriate to the context of a densified City
ii. Economic use of scarce well located land
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013iii. Integrated and pedestrianised human settlement approach
iv. Optimal utilisation of existing services and infrastructure
v. Good access to existing schools, work and shops
vi. Good access to well established public transport hubs
vii. Increased densification in an area increases economic activity, and breaks thresholds
for economic investment in the area
Design Challenges:
The architects for Joe Slovo Phase 3 required additional design and planning time when compared to
a typical RDP development. This was in order to come up with a design and layout which would fit
three times more households than a typical RDP development into the space provided, and to ensure
that the design created an integrated urban space required.
However, the largest amount of effort went into getting a common vision and buy-in from all
stakeholders to the alternative design approach. This included in particular
i. the community, who expected a stand-alone house with a yard initially, and who had to accept
that only a small portion of the community would be able to be accommodated if this
route was pursued.
ii. the City of Cape Town, who approved the development and infrastructure plans, needed to be
satisfied that the development design would meet infrastructure, service maintenance and
safety standards. These included that the project team
a. allowed access for municipal and fire vehicles in the pedestrianized sections of the
development
b. specified a greater depth of water, sewerage and electrical piping to protect house
foundations
c. allowed for the installation of an above ground stormwater drainage channel system (a
necessity due to the narrow pedestrian roads not being able to accommodate these
underground)
d. increased the foundation height of each house by 300 mm to accommodate a 1 in 100
year storm
Extensive delays to the project came as a result of these challenges. This was not an unexpected
situation, given the ‘business unusual’ requirements of the alternative design. However, should future
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013developments follow this route, there is now a precedent which should assist in moving it along more
swiftly.
Lessons learnt from a low income housing Contractor’s perspective
Low income housing construction is typically the development of one storey stand alone units built on
serviced stands. While the Joe Slovo Phase 3 design, construction details, levels of skills deployed,
methods and materials applied are standard to the broader building industry, it is atypical in the low
income housing building industry and does not match the norms and standards typically expected in
this sector.
As a result, the contractors for Joe Slovo have had to better resource the construction planning,
management and supervision components of the work to ensure the requisite quality is achieved,
increasing internal costs.
Due to their ability to absorb these costs and to utilize more skilled staff, the larger of the two
construction companies working on site has proved to be better equipped to handle the additional
levels of complexity required to deliver higher density housing.
Lessons learnt on urban design perceptions from the Joe Slovo community
The Joe Slovo community was surveyed to assess their experience of the living in Joe Slovo from an
urban design perspective. The key results are listed below.
i. Generally, there was community acceptance for the double storey buildings and the design
space. However, double storey buildings are a safety issue for the elderly and children.
ii. Shared walls increased noise levels in the house when neighbours walk up the stairs, although
most residents did not find this a problem.
iii. Increased levels of safety were perceived by the community – endorsing one of the objectives
of the urban design
iv. There is very good use of the public spaces for community interaction.
a. The small courtyards inside each block are extensively used for socializing, play areas
for children and hanging washing
b. The large courtyards are extensively used for community meetings, hanging washing
and general socializing.
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013v. One of the main design flaws raised by the community has been the omission of washing lines,
which are cluttering up the public spaces. Provision of washing line areas in future designs
should be taken into account.
The acceptance of the space, utilization of the public spaces and the sense of safety within the
community indicate that the objectives of the design have been largely achieved.
Lessons learnt from costs associated with the Joe Slovo Phase 3 Development
IRDP - The Joe Slovo Phase 3 development was delivered within the identical budget allocated to
typical RDP housing developments. While the top structure came in a R94 000 as opposed to the
typical RDP household top structure cost of R72 000, the infrastructure cost were kept to R6000 as
opposed to the normal R28 000. These infrastructure savings came primarily through two factors:
i. The densification of the development meant that only 4 metres of services was required per
household as opposed to the typical 10 metres. This meant that an initial 60% saving could
be achieved through densification.
ii. The large amount of pedestrianised roads in Joe Slovo Phase 3 which require less and cheaper
material when compared to roads designed for vehicles. The reduction in base course
thickness and road width, combined with cheaper pavers when compared to road bitumen
resulted in approximately a further 65% saving on infrastructure costs.
Moving towards delivering more sustainable human settlements – Urban Design
The urban design for Joe Slovo Phase 3 has proved to be by and large successful. The development
has proved that creating a denser, integrated and safer RDP development on well located land within
an urban space, and within a normal RDP development budget, is possible. The community and
other stakeholders have been convinced to accept the alternative design approach. The architects
and contractors have adapted to this too.
However, in order to inform housing policy in this area more comprehensively, an economic benefit
analysis is suggested. This is to better understand the overall impact of an integrated, well situated
and dense development such as Joe Slovo, when compared to a typical single stand housing
development on the urban edge. This should take overall development costs into account, but also
look at the added economic, social and environmental benefits of each design approach to the
country as a whole. If the results of such an analysis show that the economic benefit to the country is
better through a Joe Slovo type of development when compared to a typical RDP development, it will
strengthen the case for housing policy to support future developments of this nature.
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013Joe Slovo Phase 3 Energy Efficiency Analysis
Several energy efficiency interventions have been included in Joe Slovo Phase 3 – thermally efficient
building design, solar water heaters, efficient lighting and efficient transport. While there are direct
energy saving benefits from these interventions to the end user, there are also community
perceptions to consider, as well as procurement, implementation and maintenance issues for some of
them. Employment creation opportunities and potential income from the carbon market also needs
to be understood.
The key lessons learnt from these perspectives are summarized by intervention below.
Solar water heaters (SWHs)
The Joe Slovo Phase 3 development has installed a 100 litre solar water heater (SWH) on each
household, with funding from the Danish government. This intervention has the benefit of providing
free hot water to a household that would typically be boiling water in a kettle or a in a pot on a stove
for sanitation, washing and cooking purposes.
Lessons learnt – SWH Procurement
The SWHs were procured in a separate tender to the main construction contract. This created several
problems with the main contractor, who was concerned that installation by a separate contractor
would affect the guarantee that they could provide on the roof structure. This was resolved by
awarding the contract to a subcontractor of the main contractor. While not an ideal approach, the
procurement process did result in a comprehensive tender document which can be used for future
government SWH procurement, and provided some lessons to take forward should SWHs need to be
procured in future RDP developments. These are:
i. Include SWH procurement, installation and maintenance as a component of the overall
construction tender, to ensure roof guarantees and effective site management
ii. Tender documentation must include reference to standards and legislation to ensure product,
installation and maintenance quality, and to ensure that local content requirements are
met
iii. Tenders can be used to encourage additional benefits to be offered by the tenderer – Joe
Slovo received additional solar powered courtyard lighting through the SWH tender.
Lessons learnt - SWH installation and maintenance
In order for the SWHs to be safely installed on the development roof, four reinforced roof trusses
were required to accommodate the additional load from the unit, at an additional cost of R220 per
household. Truss spacing did not need to change but knowing where the reinforced trusses were
required an additional level of co-ordination from the contractor.
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013Joe Slovo Phase 3 also provided additional challenges to the SWH installation team due to it being a
double storey development. Additional plant and safety equipment was needed to safely lift installers
onto the roof, and this slowed the rate of installation down. Once installed, a maintenance
programme was put in place. Key learnings from SWH installation and maintenance are provided
below:
i. Local unskilled labour can form up to 33% of the SWH installation team. In Joe Slovo’s case, 6
of the 18 installation staff were local unskilled labour.
ii. Double storey buildings slow down the rate of installation by 40%, pushing up installation
costs by a similar amount.
iii. An additional R310 per SWH should also be budgeted for in a double storey installation to pay
for the personnel lifting equipment and additional piping runs. Also an additional R2500
per installer extra to cover safety equipment due to working at double storey height
iv. Members of the local community can be trained and capacitated to perform the function of
basic maintenance, and to be the first ‘go to’ people whenever a problem arises. A strong
link with the installer and manufacturer is essential should problems be more complicated
than simple maintenance, and clear understandings as to manufacturing warrantees and
installation guarantees need to be established up front.
Lessons learnt - SWH performance
Four households in Joe Slovo were monitored to determine the amount of energy saved from having
a SWH. Two of the houses were north facing, one was west facing and one was south facing. The
SWHs on the north and west facing houses were mounted at 50 degrees facing north and west
respectively. The SWH on the South facing house was mounted facing North at 13 degrees due to the
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013slope of the roof. Equipment was also installed on an east facing house, but this was stolen and no
measurements could be made.
i. Energy savings in the houses measured varied from 8 to 100kWhs per month. This is a direct
result of the amount of hot water used by the household. Under current City of Cape Town
electricity tariffs, this translates to a monthly saving of R7.27 to R90.86.
ii. Comparing orientation, north facing SWHs at 50 degrees to the horizontal perform the best
over the period June-October, while west facing SWHs performed better in November. The
SWH north at 13 degrees to the horizontal on South facing roofs performed the worst over
the 6 month measurement period.
iii. Maximum water temperatures in June range between 35 to 42 degrees C, while in October
they range between 42 and 58 degrees C (noting that the water is tempered not to come
out hotter than 60 degrees for safety purposes)
iv. Overall annual performance differences are still to be determined and measurements will
continue to get a full year’s results.
Lessons learnt – SWHs Community survey
The community surveys conducted determined household perception of the SWHs and hot water
usage patterns. Key learnings on SWHs from the community surveys include:
i. SWHs are very beneficial in summer, but are not as beneficial in winter when they only
provide lukewarm water.
ii. Overall 98% of the households felt that their life had improved since getting the SWH.
iii. Hot water from the SWH is mostly used for body washing (96%), cooking (12%) and house
cleaning (including dishes) (19%).
Lessons learnt - Carbon potential from SWHs for Joe Slovo Phase 3
SWHs are the intervention which has the greatest potential for carbon savings in the development.
The potential for carbon money from SWHs in Joe Slovo Phase 3 was investigated, but under the
current market the costs involved to register and monitor the programme outweigh the income. The
following key lessons were learnt:
i. Standard Bank has CDM POA available for use on Joe Slovo, but a carbon price of at least 2.50
Euros per ton would be required to ensure additional income for the development to pay
for maintenance. The current carbon price stands at 0.40 Euro per ton.
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013ii. The first carbon credits will only be issued within 18 months meaning that budgets over a
minimum three year period should be considered before a positive cash flow can be
achieved
iii. The lack of a viable SWH carbon programme implies that a carbon programme for any of the
other interventions would not be viable either
Moving towards delivering more sustainable human settlements – Solar Water Heaters
This report has shown that solar water heaters (SWHs) can provide substantial energy savings
to poor households and improve their quality of life. Should SWHs be included in future RDP
developments they should be part of the overall building contract, and must comply with
national standards and local content laws. A functional maintenance programme is essential
for sustainability. Additional employment will be created from the installation of SWHs,
including local unskilled labour which can be trained up to run the maintenance programme.
It should be noted that installing SWHs on double storey buildings is more expensive from a
material and labour perspective. Carbon programmes for SWHs can be viable if the price of
carbon rises sufficiently in the future. If this occurs, the money generated can cover the
maintenance of the SWHs into the future.
Thermal efficiency
The thermal performance of the Joe Slovo Phase 3 households was compared to that of a more
typical RDP household development in Delft, Cape Town. The purpose of this exercise was to
determine the thermal benefit of the Joe Slovo shared wall, double storey design as opposed to the
more typical single storey RDP household design. It is important to note that both the Joe Slovo and
Delft houses have ceilings and the same thickness of Isotherm insulation (40mm) in them, so these
comparisons are based on housing design alone.
Lessons learnt - Thermal efficiency measurement
i. The Joe Slovo design results in less temperature extremes (ie less hot and less cold) when
compared to a typical RDP style house. This includes buildings of all orientations, with
minor exceptions to the rule
a. In summer Joe Slovo is 3-6 degrees cooler than the maximum temperature in Delft
b. In winter Joe Slovo is 0.5 to 3 degrees warmer than the minimum temperature in Delft
c. Spring and Autumn temperatures are fairly similar between the houses, but Joe Slovo
generally experiences less fluctuation of temperature over the day compared to Delft
(fluctuations between 20 and 25 degrees for Joe Slovo, as opposed to 18-27 degrees
for Delft )
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013ii. The room area on the bottom storey of a Joe Slovo household is typically .5 to 1.5 degrees
colder than the top storey. This means that it will be more comfortable to be in the bottom
storey in summer, but more comfortable in the top storey in winter.
iii. Thermal analysis of household orientation in Joe Slovo indicates that north facing houses
provide the best comfort levels over the year on average. South facing houses are most
comfortable in summer, but are the coldest in winter. East and west facing houses are
warmest in winter, but are the hottest in summer.
Lessons learnt-Thermal Efficiency Community survey
As part of the community surveys undertaken, the community’s perception of the thermal
performance of the houses was assessed. Key lessons learnt were:
i. There was a general perception that Joe Slovo houses were hotter than informal settlement
shacks in summer, possibly due to better ventilation in the shacks
ii. The households found the bottom storey more comfortable in summer, and the top storey
more comfortable in winter
iii. Generally the aesthetics of the ceilings are appreciated by the community
iv. There is however still a perception of temperature extremes in the community, even though
measured data indicates otherwise
Moving towards delivering more sustainable human settlements – Thermal efficiency
The shared wall double storey design for Joe Slovo provides markedly improved thermal comfort
levels for the household when compared to a typical RDP household, regardless of orientation.
Summers are cooler by up to 6 degrees and winters are warmer by up to 3 degrees, while in spring
and autumn the temperature is comfortable all day long, not fluctuating much.
A warmer winter means less heating with associated energy saving, and a cooler summer improves
comfort levels.
Ceilings also provide a positive aesthetic to the house, which the community appreciates.
Based on this, there is a strong case to be made from a thermal efficiency perspective for future RDP
projects to be built in a similar way to Joe Slovo Phase 3.
Efficient lighting
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013Compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) were installed in all new households. These are typically 5 times
more efficient than the cheaper incandescent bulbs. The key lessons learnt from efficient lighting
component of the community survey were:
i. There is a general community understanding that CFLs save money
ii. However, without a maintained CFL replacement programme in place it is likely that the
community will resort to cheaper incandescent bulbs once a light bulb needs to be
replaced.
Mobility-efficient transport
Key lessons from community survey
i. Joe Slovo provides excellent access to work (30-60mins), schools (0-30 mins) and shops (0-15
mins) for the community. This generally talks to a well located settlement.
ii. Access to public transport (taxi, train and bus) is good. The community is satisfied with
transport arrangements in and around the development.
Conclusions
Joe Slovo Phase 3 represents a significant shift towards a more sustainable low income housing delivery
approach in South Africa. The development has taken substantially longer to design, due to a large amount of
new ground needing to be covered. However, it is anticipated that incorporating the lessons learnt from this
document will ensure that housing developments of this nature should take a similar amount of time to
complete when compared to a more typical low income housing development.
Many conclusions that can be drawn from the Joe Slovo Phase 3 development
From an urban design perspective the Joe Slovo Phase 3 development has shown that
i. low income housing does not need to be poorly located on the urban edge, but can form an integral
part of the existing urban space
ii. three times the typical densification can be achieved when compared to a typical low income housing
development, with an enhanced quality of urban space
iii. the development can be delivered within current housing subsidy budget allocations
iv. infrastructure can be safely provided within the denser area
v. the largely pedestrianized spaces in Joe Slovo create a safer and more people focused environment
vi. excellent access to places of work, education and commerce can be achieved
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013From an energy efficiency perspective the Joe Slovo Phase 3 development has shown that:
i. thermally, the building design creates a more comfortable internal environment (up to 3 degrees
cooler in summer and 6 degrees warmer in winter) when compared to a typical low income
household. This is due to shared walls in the development and the concrete slab for the first floor
regulating the temperatures
ii. solar water heaters are providing up to 100kWh/month saving on water heating costs, approximately
R100 worth of saving. 98% of the community have said that their life has improved as a result of
the intervention
iii. additional SWH installation costs for reinforced roof trusses (R220/unit) and extra installation time
(R310/unit) must be absorbed. The additional costs for reinforced roof trusses should also be
included in any retrofit
iv. orientation of SWHs is acceptable from east through north to west
v. efficient lighting saves money and is appreciated by the community
vi. transport time and costs can be reduced due to location
While this report has shown the immediate benefits on many levels of a development such as Joe Slovo Phase
3, what is not quantified is the potential socio-economic benefit that it can bring to the larger community. A
well located densified development will create increased commercial opportunity, higher degrees of social
interaction and creativity and lead to a richer social and economic fabric. While this impact cannot be
quantified at this stage at Joe Slovo, there is a sense that this could be the lasting legacy of the development,
and ultimately lead to a more integrated, safer, economically and socially stronger city.
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT
The purpose of this document is to provide the National Department of Human Settlements and other stakeholders such
as Provincial and Municipal Departments of Human Settlements with key lessons learnt from the Joe Slovo high density
RDP housing development in Cape Town.
The Joe Slovo development is building formal housing for 2886 households who are currently occupying an established
informal settlement in a city central location in Langa, Cape Town. Due to the limited land available in the area and the
demands of the community to remain there, a high density alternative to the typical single unit and plot development is
currently being implemented. In addition, with international funding from Danida, a solar water heater is being provided
for each household.
This development is of particular interest to national low income housing delivery as it talks to many of the principles
listed in the National Housing Code and the Municipal Spatial Development Frameworks (SDF) which are often not realised
in reality. These include:
Curbing the urban edge and densifying existing populated areas
Promoting energy efficiency in low income housing
Working towards sustainable and integrated human settlements, close to public amenities, work opportunities
and education facilities.
Implementation of this type of development, while beneficial to the community settling in it, requires a shift from the
norm of low income housing delivery on many levels. These include alternative budgeting and implementation approaches
for government and contractors alike, additional technical and administrative considerations around energy efficiency
implementation and raising community awareness around these issues.
This document will look at the development from various angles to try to fully understand the impact of creating human
settlements such as Joe Slovo from the perspective of government, house recipient, contractors and the community at
large.
The intention of the document is to provide a concise summary of key lessons learnt from these perspectives. Each of the
areas summarised will have detailed research and reports attached as addendums, should the reader wish to understand
the conclusions reached in more detail.
It is hoped that this information will add to the broader pool of understanding around what it really means to deliver
sustainable human settlements to poor communities in South Africa, and to provide input to low income housing policy
development into the future.
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013OVERVIEW OF THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY REGULATIONS FOR
HOUSING IN SOUTH AFRICA
Prior to looking into the detail of the Joe Slovo development, it is useful to understand the current context regarding
energy efficiency regulations for housing in South Africa.
On 9 September 2011, amendment XA to the National Building Regulations was signed in by the Minister of the
Department of Trade and Industry. This regulation required that all new houses built in South Africa from this date need to
meet the minimum energy efficiency requirements specified. Some of the key requirements that must to be met to
comply with this regulation are:
1. Installation of ceilings and insulation in all new houses at significantly higher insulation levels to those typically
used in South Africa
2. If possible, the orientation of the building must be predominantly north facing
3. All north facing windows must have overhangs which are able to shade out the midday summer sun
4. All walls must comprise a minimum of 140mm wide bricks with plastering inside and rendering outside.
5. A minimum of 33% increased window area is required for better internal lighting
6. The energy for 50% of all hot water requirements for the house must come from a sustainable source, implying a
solar water heater or a heat pump system replacing a stand alone electric or gas geyser, and in the absence of
these, may be interpreted to supplement the use of electric kettles.
This regulation applies to all new buildings in South Africa, including government funded low incoming housing projects.
As the interventions mentioned above require additional capital outlay, this regulation has a direct impact on the budget
required to deliver low income households in South Africa.
This regulation has been partially y ignored by low income housing projects, and a business as usual approach has been
adopted. National government is not providing the additional funding per household to meet the requirements of the
legislation, and contractors cannot afford to cut costs further to meet the requirement of the standards.
Joe Slovo does meet some but not all of these additional criteria, including insulated ceilings and solar water heaters, and
the impact of these interventions will be quantified in greater detail in this report.
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013LESSONS LEARNT FROM JOE SLOVO PHASE 3 URBAN DESIGN
AND IMPLEMENTATION
THE BACKGROUND TO THE JOE SLOVO DEVELOPMENT
The Joe Slovo settlement is situated 10 km East of Cape Town CBD, on City owned land along the N2 highway in Langa.
Phase 1 (rental units) and phase 2 (bonded units) of the development are complete, and are not the focus of this report.
Phase 3A, B & C, the last and largest part of this project, will construct approximately 2886 RDP subsidised homes on the
remainder 27 hectares of this land. It is this portion of the development that the report will focus on.
FIGURE 1: JOE SLOVO PHASE 3 LOCALITY PLAN
The site, indicated as 3A, 3B and 3C, with its surrounding context , can be seen in these images. Movement corridors are
the eastern and southern edge, being the N2 highway leading into the City of Cape Town and Vanguard Drive respectively.
Joe Slovo, Phase 1 and 2 borders on the left of 3C. The existing urban environment for 3A, 3B and 3C consists mainly of
shack structures, with no formal houses or backyards.
FIGURE 2: JOE SLOVO INFORMAL HOUSEHOLDS
Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013EXISTING SETTLEMENT PROFILE The Joe Slovo informal settlement is currently 19 years old with a population of more or less 7946 residents, residing in 2748 shack structures. FIGURE 3: SHACK SIZE ANALYSIS (COMMUNITY ORGANISATION RESOURCE CENTRE, 2009) FIGURE 4: POPULATION DISTRIBUTION (COMMUNITY ORGANISATION RESOURCE CENTRE 2009) The urban community of Joe Slovo, Phase 3A, 3B & 3C, is constituted mostly by Xhosa speaking people, most of whom migrated from the Eastern Cape, some as far back as 1992. The current built form on the site comprises of only shack structures, built according to an informal, high density spatial arrangement. No permanent structures are erected and people live in very high densities on the site. The average shack size is between 6-20m². In some cases, shacks of 20m² are shared by more than one family. In order to meet the requirements of the community to accommodate all 2886 households into the development, an alternative high density design approach needed to be adopted. One of the key design challenges was to ensure that individual erven were still allocated, as required by the national subsidy criteria. In other words, each recipient needed to have a footprint of land allocated to them. Therefore multi storey sectional title blocks were not an option. An effort was also made to create a more integrated and functional space than that typically created by low income housing developments in South Africa. A description of the how the final design for Joe Slovo was reached, taking these issues into account follows. JOE SLOVO DESIGN APPROACH CURRENT SUBSIDY HOUSING BUILT ORDER Joe Slovo Phase 3 Lessons Learnt Document Dec 2013
You can also read
