When mayor Dada Morero initiated Johannesburg’s extensive clean-up campaign earlier this year, it sparked the ongoing debate: is this just a political spectacle or an authentic city improvement?
Johannesburg, the leading economic hub of Africa, contributes about 16% to South Africa’s GDP and 40% to Gauteng’s economy. It is at a critical crossroads, confronting governance challenges, ageing infrastructure and urban decay that threaten its competitiveness and the well-being of its 5.6-million residents.
Nonetheless, history demonstrates that urban decline is not unavoidable. Cities around the world, once deemed beyond hope, have made remarkable recoveries, offering valuable insights for Johannesburg’s path forward.
The timing of this debate is crucial considering South Africa’s current political situation, especially since Johannesburg recently hosted the G20 Summit. The Government of National Unity (GNU), formed after the ANC’s lowest-ever 40.18% vote share in the 2024 elections, operates through complex coalitions with the DA (21.81%) and smaller parties.
This political makeup introduces considerable uncertainty for long-term urban planning, prompting an essential question: is coalition governance capable of supporting the multi-decade efforts needed for urban transformation?
Think about New York City in 1975, teetering on the brink of financial ruin with more than $13bn in municipal debt, essential services breaking down and more than 2,000 murders each year.
President Gerald Ford’s notable refusal to support the city seemed to confirm that America’s largest metropolis was doomed. However, it took three decades of institutional reform, guided by six mayors from both political parties, to begin the path to recovery.
Mayor Abraham Beame (1974-1977) accepted federal oversight and implemented strict fiscal discipline. Edward Koch (1978-1989) prioritised stabilising city finances through disciplined budgeting. David Dinkins (1990-1993) launched transformative community policing initiatives. Rudy Giuliani (1994-2001) reduced major crimes by 70% and pioneered public-private partnerships. Michael Bloomberg (2002-2013) furthered these achievements by expanding rezoning initiatives and transit infrastructure.
By 2010, murder rates had fallen by over 80% from their 1990 peak, and the city reestablished itself as the world’s top financial hub. This shows that successful urban transformation depends on coalition partners maintaining institutional stability across electoral cycles, a particular challenge for Johannesburg’s Government of Local Unity, which often negotiates mandates rather than outright winning them.
Medellín, Colombia, experienced a remarkable transformation in only 12-15 years, compared to New York’s three-decade recovery. In the early 1990s, Medellín had the highest worldwide homicide rate, with 381 murders per 100,000 residents.
Mayor Sergio Fajardo (2004-2007) introduced ‘social urbanism’, channelling resources into marginalised communities via library parks, the Metrocable cable car system connecting hillside settlements to the metro, and healthcare facilities.
Importantly, his successors Alonso Salazar (2008-2011) and Aníbal Gaviria (2012-2015) continued these initiatives despite representing different political parties. By 2015, Medellín’s homicide rate had dropped to 20 per 100,000, reflecting a 95% reduction. In 2013, the Urban Land Institute recognised the city as the “Most Innovative City”. Property values increased, business investments grew, and tourism became a key sector.
In Johannesburg, townships and informal settlements still face poor services because of old apartheid-inspired spatial planning. Medellín demonstrates that investing in marginalised communities is essential for ensuring urban stability and promoting economic growth.
In Spain, Bilbao’s transformation illustrates catalytic infrastructure. After experiencing over 25% unemployment due to industrial decline in the 1980s, regional and local leaders invested €89m to create a Guggenheim Museum branch.
Opened in 1997, the site attracted 1.36-million visitors in its first year, which was three times higher than initially predicted. By 2023, it had drawn over 28-million visitors, contributing an estimated €6.6bn to the regional economy. Additionally, nearby property values increased by 30-50%.
However, the museum was included in a wider 20-year plan that also sought to expand the metro, redevelop the waterfront and address environmental issues. This shows that flagship projects, whether cultural venues or innovation districts, can shape how investors view the area.
To maintain coalition stability, these projects should incorporate safeguards through institutional mechanisms that offer continuous support. As a result, Johannesburg could consider implementing similar strategies.
South Korea’s experience in Seoul demonstrates how political courage can drive change. In 2002, mayor Lee Myung-bak proposed removing a major elevated highway that handled 170,000 vehicles daily to uncover the Cheonggyecheon Stream. The $900m project faced significant opposition, mainly due to fears of traffic chaos.
After the 5.8km motorway was removed, traffic flow improved as more commuters shifted to public transportation. Property values within 50 metres rose by 30-50%, and air quality improved notably.
The key lesson is that transformative renewal often involves implementing measures that may initially be unpopular, and coalition partners must defend bold leadership initiatives against short-term political pressures.
Johannesburg’s Rea Vaya Bus Rapid Transit system, launched in 2009, remains limited to three phases and encounters issues with funding and coordination. In contrast, Curitiba, Brazil, established the world’s first fully developed BRT system in 1974 under mayor Jaime Lerner. Its success was mainly driven by its integration with land-use planning, which promoted high-density development along transit routes.
By 2000, Curitiba’s BRT system transported 2.3-million passengers each day, accounting for 75% of all commuters. This change resulted from nearly 30 years of consistent policy enforcement. Conversely, Johannesburg encounters difficulties due to fragmented responsibilities and weak institutional safeguards. The success of expanding BRT relies on coalition partners agreeing on integrated planning frameworks that transcend individual portfolios.
Singapore’s remarkable growth from a GDP per capita of about $500 in 1965 to over $65,000 in 2015 highlights the enduring influence of robust institutional discipline across generations. Over more than 50 years, consistent governance has led to widespread public housing — more than 80% of Singaporeans live in government-built homes— along with focused investments in education, strict anti-corruption policies and long-term infrastructure planning shielded from short-term political influences.
Johannesburg continues to deal with challenges, including 150-400 hijacked buildings in the CBD. This highlights the need for ongoing renewal to rely on robust institutional frameworks that maintain standards regardless of political changes. Such renewal requires professional, depoliticised municipal agencies with well-defined mandates and protections against political interference.
Detroit, in Michigan, US, is still recovering from an $18-20bn bankruptcy in July 2013 and offers important lessons. After the bankruptcy, mayors began reclaiming property by using land banking, demolishing more than 20,000 abandoned buildings since 2014. The city’s population, which fell from 1.85-million in 1950 to 677,000 in 2015, has now stabilised with slight growth in certain neighbourhoods.
Recovery stays fragile and centred in certain areas, highlighting a major challenge. Without deliberate policies to promote inclusive growth, the renewal process risks increasing inequality by directing benefits to districts that are already well-off and sidelining less-advantaged communities.
These seven cities demonstrate consistent principles. Urban renewal needs a long-term dedication from various governments over 15-30 years, with careful financial management and targeted infrastructure investments to foster wider regeneration. It also requires political bravery to adopt initially unpopular policies, coordinated planning that links transportation and land use, robust institutional structures to uphold standards and policies that aid marginalised communities.
In Johannesburg, this involves creating protected, long-term planning strategies to shield essential projects from political changes. It also demands rigorous fiscal discipline via transparent budgets and independent oversight, while emphasising catalytic infrastructure such as CBD revitalisation, reclaiming hijacked buildings, and expanding Rea Vaya.
The approach emphasises community-led growth via township investments. It also includes establishing an independent Land Bank to systematically reclaim abandoned properties.
Additionally, it enforces regulatory standards through professional inspectorates and maintains institutional strength by making merit-based appointments, all while protecting against political interference.
The main question is whether Johannesburg’s GLU can provide the institutional stability needed to fulfil these demands. Coalition governance offers chances to broaden support for reforms, encourage inclusive decision-making and strengthen oversight. Nonetheless, it also poses risks such as internal conflicts that could hinder projects, delays in decision-making, fragmented authority and electoral volatility.
Importantly, international examples show that coalition governance can drive renewal only when partners establish institutional mechanisms that go beyond partisan politics. For instance, Medellín’s success depended on leaders from different backgrounds coming together around a common vision. New York’s recovery required bipartisan support. Similarly, Bilbao’s transformation was achieved through cooperation across political divides.
Although mayor Morero’s clean-up campaign has generated debate, it’s important to distinguish between temporary initiatives and sustainable, long-term strategies. The critical issue is whether this effort will lead to a sustained, multi-decade commitment essential for true renewal.
Cities across the globe show that reversing urban decline requires steady leadership, disciplined financial management, strategic investments, institutions that safeguard long-term initiatives, and a strong commitment to accountability. These transformations do not happen quickly and are not brought about by a single leader.
All these efforts depend on political leaders prioritising shared urban objectives over partisan interests. Johannesburg’s renewal hinges on whether the leaders of the GLU can set aside partisan worries and concentrate on long-term transformation plans. The moment for decisive action is now.
The future of Johannesburg hinges on leadership choices, reforms, political bravery and the ability of different groups to come together around a common vision beyond partisan differences.
While the cleanup process has begun, critical tasks such as reinforcing institutions, protecting projects, supporting marginalised communities, enforcing standards, and sustaining commitment through election cycles need to start right away.
With 5.6-million residents watching, the city waits to see if its leaders possess the vision, determination, and political courage to follow a proven and practical course.
Phosane Mngqibisa, PhD candidate, economic researcher and policy analyst
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.