City extends public comment on sale of old Woodstock Hospital
This follows a meeting on Wednesday by Woodstock ratepayers to discuss the City’s intention to sell the site
The City of Cape Town has extended the public participation process to release the old Woodstock Hospital site. The site has been unlawfully occupied since 2017. Archive photo: Ashraf Hendricks
- Public comment on the sale of the old Woodstock Hospital site has been extended to the end of January 2025.
- The initial deadline for comments on the matter was Wednesday, 27 November.
- This follows a meeting on Wednesday by Woodstock ratepayers to discuss the City’s intention to sell the old Woodstock Hospital site.
The public participation process to release the old Woodstock Hospital site for the development of affordable housing has been extended.
This follows a Woodstock Residents’ Association meeting on Wednesday where some residents expressed concern that the site’s occupiers will be rendered homeless should the sale go ahead. A few residents welcomed the possibility of a new development, hoping it would increase their property values.
The City of Cape Town has said the site will be disposed of and could become one of the biggest social and affordable housing opportunities.
In August GroundUp reported that nearly 900 people living at the hospital who occupied unlawfully occupied it in 2017 as part of the Reclaim the City affordable housing campaign, face an uncertain future. Many of the occupiers moved there after being evicted or displaced from their homes in Woodstock due to gentrification. The occupiers have renamed the hospital Cissie Gool House.
The initial deadline for comments on the matter was Wednesday, 27 November. But the City has now extended it to the end of January 2025 to give enough time for more people to comment on the future development of the property.
Ashura Easton told Wednesday’s meeting she has been living at Cissie Gool House for nearly seven years. “There are a number of women-headed households residing at the (occupation). Who would then become homeless? It would be women with children, and the elderly living with their grandchildren,” she said at the meeting on Wednesday.
“I’ve got three children, and my second grandchild was born [on Tuesday],” she added.
Easton said it’s not that the occupiers don’t want to pay rates. “We’d love to put electricity in our box. We’d love to put something towards the water,” she said.
Lorenzo Johnson from the Development Action Group (DAG), whose family lives in Woodstock, told the meeting he was concerned about the sale. “We’d love to see an integrated, diverse inner-city where everybody can live and work together.”
He noted that he did not want to see families displaced and forced to spend a lot of money to travel in and out of the city centre.
Meanwhile another resident, Thurlo Mckie, echoed the sentiments of some residents who support the sale and development at the site. “It’s not easy to say, but I’m for the development by this private buyer. What happens with whoever is occupying the space right now … I’m sure the City would do something. But it would definitely uplift our property [values] and the whole environment,” he said
In a statement, Reclaim the City, called for solidarity with Cissie Gool House and urged the City to strongly consider that the development be done incrementally so as not to displace the current occupiers.
“The City must recognise these occupations as viable, lived alternatives and acknowledge our role as a solution amid a housing crisis. Our occupation has served as transitional housing for those evicted from the surrounding areas in Woodstock,” they said.
According to the City, the property is valued at approximately R87-million, including a potential residential development yield of about 500 units comprising open market and social housing.
In response to our questions, mayco member for human settlements Carl Pophaim said: “I’m so excited by the robust engagement around the City’s affordable housing agenda, particularly the inputs that have been critically constructive.”
“The City intends to engage the residents further concerning the proposed sale and development of the property, including the options available to them (the occupiers) to determine the appropriate response for each household. Every voice must be heard,” he said.
Next: Flood victims not welcome, say residents
Previous: Promise Mabilo’s child has asthma. She is fighting for cleaner air in Mpumalanga
Letters
Dear Editor
As a resident living close to this hospital, I would like to comment as follows. Firstly, I am not against affordable housing; however, I wonder how many jobs are available in the nearby vicinity, as stated by these occupants?
I have more to add but, due to limited response space, I will state the following: for nearly eight years, I (and others) have been terrorised by appalling behaviour that has been permitted on these premises. I have had endless conversations with the ex-Mayor, the current Mayor (who now ignores me), the Premier, JP Smith, the Head of Law Enforcement, NU (Jonty Cogger, etc.), Helen Zille, and John Steenhuisen (who also ignored me) about this matter, and nothing has been done to address this ongoing, unacceptable behaviour.
I have copious records, including audio and visual evidence, of what has occurred. Surely, as many have said, “We would all like to live together.” Then, out of respect, would you not behave in a respectful manner? Clearly not – for reasons unknown to me –despite my endless personal requests. Apparently, the attitude is: “We are entitled and will do as we please.”
I refer to endless drunken parties at all hours, fights, yelling and screaming, excessively loud music, assaults, insults, threats, and a complete lack of consideration.
I am fully aware that my concerns are unpopular, which I find very curious. All I request is proper management of these premises, which has been sorely lacking for over seven years.
Dear Editor
The seven-year illegal occupation of the Woodstock Hospital has created significant challenges for the surrounding community. Despite claims of addressing displacement issues, there has been little transparency regarding who, if anyone, has actually been evicted from the area. The numbers cited about evictions and affected individuals appear exaggerated and lack concrete evidence.
There’s also little indication that illegal occupiers have made meaningful efforts to uplift themselves or the property they have commandeered. Instead, the site has become a symbol of decay in the neighborhood, with the derelict building contributing to the visual and structural decline of the suburb. The occupation has resulted in increased noise pollution and disorder, blatantly disregarding the rights of law-abiding, rate-paying citizens.
The building is no longer fit for purpose and has only worsened the area’s living conditions. Its continued existence in this state is a disservice to the community. Immediate action should be taken to demolish the structure, clearing the way for responsible development that respects the needs of the broader neighborhood. It is critical that this site is redeveloped as soon as possible to restore normalcy and enhance the area's overall quality of life.
Dear Editor
Woodstock is one of Cape Town’s most historically significant and diverse areas. Unlike many urban neighborhoods, it withstood apartheid’s Group Areas Act, allowing families of colour to remain close to the city. Over decades, it has been home to working-class families, small businesses, artisans, and diverse places of worship.
This community comprises predominantly low- and middle-income families who have lived here for generations. Residents rely on local schools, public amenities, and a safe environment, with many elderly members deeply rooted in the area.
An abandoned hospital in Woodstock has been occupied over the years. The government now proposes converting it into a densely packed affordable housing project. While housing needs are critical, this proposal threatens to destabilise Woodstock’s community and infrastructure.
Concerns include:
Disregard for Historical Context
Woodstock survived apartheid-era spatial segregation, preserving its legacy as a diverse and accessible urban space. This project risks erasing that history with unsustainable density and inadequate consideration of community dynamics.
Exploitation of a Vulnerable Community
The area’s working-class residents already struggle to access essential services. Increased population density will strain infrastructure, including schools, roads, utilities, and public transport.
Neglect of Residents’ Needs
Families depend on Woodstock’s stability for their livelihoods and children’s safety. This project could disrupt their lives and compromise the area’s quality of life.
Short-Term Political Gains
The government appears to prioritise political expedience over responsible urban planning, ignoring Woodstock’s unique challenges and needs.
Infrastructure and Due Diligence Gaps
Woodstock’s infrastructure—aging roads, sewerage, stormwater systems, utilities, and public transport—cannot sustain such high-density development - risking unsustainable living conditions for all residents.
Woodstock is a cultural and historical pillar of Cape Town.
© 2024 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.
We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel.