The River Club developers have responded to this campaign by releasing a set of claims to try offset the fact their development is highly problematic. But every claim can be rebutted if you examine what their plan actually entails.

For example, they claim that “a significant portion of the proposed 150 000m² of floor area will be space for retailers and offices to stimulate business development (including small business)...” But the BAR makes absolutely no mention of supporting small business development. What is says is that its Commercial elements will consist of “offices … to cater for … financial services, general business and sales and marketing.” These are not small businesses. Moreover, the rentals on which the feasibility study is based are not rentals that affordable to small businesses. For example, the proposal estimates gross rentals of R300/m² and costs of R40 (under 14% of income).  In reality the highest commercial rentals currently being realised in the city are around R250/m² and the cost to income ratio is closer to 25-30%. There is no way this business model can include support to small business development other than in the developer’s imagination.

Another claim is that 20% of the residential space will be dedicated and developer-subsidised inclusive housing for key workers and that this will “contribute towards redressing the continued injustices of apartheid spatial planning”. The figure of 20% is true but what is not mentioned is that this is 20% of 20% of the development footprint, meaning only 4% of the development is for affordable housing. As for redress of spatial injustice, the continued injustices of apartheid spatial planning can be most clearly seen in the fact that white railway workers under apartheid enjoyed subsidised leisure on the banks of the Liesbeek thanks to the apartheid era planning of Transnet which created a holiday resort on the land from which the Khoi peoples were displaced and with which they have a particular spiritual connection. That land was sold on at bare dominium (below market rates) to LLP Pty Limited in 2015 without any indigenous people having a look in. If anything should have been done to redress the injustice of apartheid spatial, that is the point at which justice should have prevailed. To now pretend you are doing a great service for poor people in Cape Town, having benefited from PRASA largesse, is hypocritical at best.

They claim that 65% of the development will be green space. Take a look at their own map above and you can see this is a fiction. To estimate the proportion of green space, they exclude roads and paved spaces. Compare what the site looks like now to what the site will look like when they are finished with it and tell us if there is a green space worth preserving any longer. Remember the buildings range between 24 and 44m in height so there will be a lot of shade on that green space…

The developers claim that they “look forward to our continued interactions with all interested and affected groups and stakeholders over the next few weeks, while the prescribed development proposal processes are underway.” However, their practice tells us differently. They have chosen only to interact with the few Khoi leaders whom they have recruited to support their application and consigning to ‘exile’ Khoi leaders opposed to their development. As for the local community, the LLPT’s attitude has been to bypass the OCA as the representative body for the Observatory community, presumably because our concerns are irreconcilable with their objectives.  For example, the developer’s hydrology consultants approached local residents with an offer to arrange flood mitigation at the developer’s costs. But when the local residents directed them to engage with residents through the civic association, the hydrologists were told by the LLPT that they “did not want to engage via the OCA.” So, it seems that the developers are willing to interact only with those groups who are willing to agree with their plans, while those who are critical are simply ignored.

This development has nothing to do with redress of spatial injustice or supporting small business. It will be dominated by high end corporations such as Amazon and will require the total destruction of the current intangible heritage resources at the site. Don’t be fooled by the developers’ yarns, which are aimed to present something other than what this proposal is.