UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND \~-\ V j _5>
 HISTORY WORKSHOP
 THE MAKING OF CLASS
 9-14 February, 1987
 AUTHOR: S.M. Parnell
 TITLE : Johannesburg's Backyards: the slums of
 New Doornfontein, Bertrams and Prospect
 Township, 1934 - 1939.
 8=
 f
Introduction
 Not only Africans were forced to live in the slums of Johannesburg.
 Even after the imposition of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act, slums
 persisted as coloureds, poor whites and Indians still resided in unsavoury
 quarters of the city. The process by which the state, through the agency
 of the Johannesburg Council, sought to clear these slums was not
 monolithic. Empowered by new provisions of the 1934 Slums Act the local
 authority implemented its anti-slum campaign in diverse ways. In all
 approaches, however, the objectives of the authorities remained to
 enforce residential segregation, clear land for business and industrial
 developments, and solve the "public health problem".
 The methods of slum eradication differed from suburb to suburb. Three
 examples of anti-slum action adopted by the Council are provided in this
 paper. Despite the massive construction of public housing in the late
 1930s the impact of the Johannesburg slum removals drastically reduced
 available cheap accommodation, particularly for coloureds and Indians.
 The start of war in 1939 precluded new building, and the effects of slum
 clearance programmes lingered into the next decade.
 The Natives (Urban Areas) Act wrought dramatic changes in the
 composition of the urban working class resident in "white Johannesburg".
 The focus in this paper is thus on the period following the upheavals
 caused by the eviction of thousands of Africans from the municipal area.
 Background information on city slum conditions prior to the anti-slum
 revival that followed in the wake of the flight to Orlando and the Western
 Areas is provided in the first section of the paper. The motivation for
 the subsequent mid 1930s launch of a slum removal campaign that extended
 beyond the application of the 1923 legislation is sought, and the
 implications of the moves to rid the city of slums assessed through three
 case studies: New Doornfontein, Bertrams, and Prospect Township.
Johannesburg's slums, 1904-1934.
 Prospector's huts, remnants of wood and iron structures used by miners
 provided the physical fabric of the Johannesburg slums. Living quarters
 for the working classes in the gold rush town had never been developed.
 As early as 1904 the outbreak of had plague testified to the insanitary
 conditions of the town. The establishment of a municipal location at
 Klipspruit, and the construction of official hostel accommodation for
 some 1200 workers* made mockery of the real demand for cheap
 accommodation. The 1918 plague that claimed thousands of lives again
 heightened awareness of the implications of the abysmal housing
 conditions for all sections of the population of the city.1 Largely in
 response to the plague's devastation state officials sought a means of
 clearing the "native menace", and of ridding the city of slums.
 In 1923 the Natives (Urban Areas) Act was heralded as the mechanism
 by which the slums could be freed of Africans, and segregation and public
 health assured.' In Johannesburg, implementing the provisions of the Act
 proved difficult. Legal applications by slumlords against the legitimacy
 of the Act's enforcement on the grounds that no alternative accommodation
 existed were successfully brought. This delayed Council efforts to have
 Africans removed from slums.' In addition to difficulties arising from
 court restrictions, the authorities noted that Africans evicted from one
 proclaimed area tended to move to the next slum, to await official action
 on the new premises. As the Act was progressively enforced, the
 concentration of people in the non-proclaimed parts of the city such as
 Sophiatown, Alexandra and Denver, increased.' People preferred these
 congested slum locations to the municipal accommodation at Orlando where,
 until as late as 1939, houses stood vacant.'
Figure 1: Racial composition of families requiring rehousing from inner
 city slum areas, 1934.
By 1934, the year of the Slums Act, the African presence in the slums
 of "white Johannesburg" had diminished, but had not been eradicated.7 In
 the worst inner city areas particularly, people of all races concentrated.
 (Figure 1.)' In addition to their persistence in the slums of the 1930s,
 a growing number of Africans lived as domestic servants on white premises.
 Municipal complaints about the increase in the extent of families living
 in servants quarters, suggests that while the number of Africans
 independently renting accommodation in the "white city" may have
 declined, the absolute numbers of Africans in the proclaimed urban area
 remained high.
 It is important to note that the complexion of the slum population by
 the 1930s had changed for reasons other than just the removal of Africans
 under the Natives (Urban Areas) Act. The growth of a poor white problem
 had increased the number of voters living in abject slum conditions so
 much, that the Johannesburg Council and the central state sought new
 methods of addressing the housing crisis. The introduction of the Slums
 Act and sub-economic housing initiatives, which provided alternative
 accommodation for whites from the slums, confirm the high percentage of
 whites in the slums.9 While a large proportion of white slum occupants
 lived in the racially integrated inner city, a notable percentage were
 to be found in the segregated suburban periphery (compare Figure 1 and
 Figure 2 ) . 1 0
 The poor white problem attracted attention of politicians of the time.
 It has also dominated the academic literature on the period. Minority
 groups under South Africa's racial order, the coloured and Indian
 communities, received only scant attention. Yet it was these groups that
 were most harshly affected by the anti-slum action in Johannesburg.
 Coloureds formed the dominant group in the inner city (Figure 1). In the
 survey used to compile this map the Council excluded the Malay Location
 where in 1936, as many as 1849 Indians lived." Given that most of the
dwellings in the Malay Location were slums, eiLher on account of the poor
 structures or the overcrowding, the significance of both coloureds and
 Indians in the slum population is clear.
 Figure 2: Racially "pure" slums in Johannesburg, 1934.
 NUMBER OF FAMILIES LIVING IN SLUMS
 o
 oL01
 'AARLSHQOP
 ftffcr a?%.\
 ' X ) } ' ^ l~ 4_A HOCIIELLE ' "~ ? ?
 ~>*^ ? ^ ^ O OKEGENISPARK \
 KUPRIVIERSBEBGQ
Restrictions on residential land allocation have existed for Indians
 almost as long as they have for Africans.'2 In Johannesburg the rights
 of the coloured population were also constrained by the Gold Law. This
 precluded the settlement of "people of colour" on mining land from as
 early as 1885." In the slum areas of the city the laissez faire approach
 of the Johannesburg Councillor's Co restrictions such as the Gold Law
 encouraged Indians, unable to rent in the overcrowded Malay Location, to
 colonise the prohibited area. The inner city slums also attracted many
 of the poorer coloureds who could not afford to purchase in outlying
 Albertsville or Newclare.
 Owing to the manner in which the slum clearance programme was
 implemented, it acted to restrict further the already tight housing
 options open to coloureds and Indians. Unlike white or African slum
 communities, coloureds were not offered municipal shelter until the end
 of the decade. Public housing for Indians was not instituted until after
 World War Two. As a result, the increasing population was forced to
 scrounge shelter from an ever diminishing housing stock; a factor not
 considered by the Johannesburg Council in their formulation of a strategy
 for slum removal in the 1930s.
 The slum policy of the Johannesburg Council
 The 1934 drive to rid the city of its slum areas was fuelled by diverse
 factors. Central to the city's commitment to the abolition of "urban
 blight" was a new found fiscal source: sub-economic funding." The boom
 in the economy which hastened on the heels of the depression, made it
 possible for the Central Housing Board to extend its subsidy on the
 housing provision that followed slum elimination. The more favourable
 economic climate spawned new industries and saw the expansion of existing
 business. This trend was most notable on the rand where the mining and
 metal sectors expanded rapidly in the 1930s.15 As a consequence additional
land close to established amenities was demanded. Unfortunately, in
 Johannesburg this land housed thousands of the city's poor, huddled
 together in inner city slums. The land crisis in Johannesburg was nude
 worse by the proximity of unused mining ground uo the CBD. This land was
 held by mining houses who refused to release the area for residential
 purposes," despite the fact that its value as a commercial proposition
 was restricted by the imposition of a three floor limit due to fear of
 instability. To accommodate industrial expansion, the people of
 Ferreiras, Marshalls, Doornfontein and other suburbs had to be removed
 (Figure 1).
 In addition to economic pressures, more political variables influenced
 slum removals. The failure of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act to solve the
 city's slum problem heightened concern over miscegenation; particularly
 as the 1930 depression had witnessed a great increase in the number of
 poor whites in urban areas." Also of concern to the city fathers was the
 lack of official control over coloured and Indian residents. Slum
 legislation provided a new, and in some .instances the sole, method of
 controlling the residential location of these sections of the community.
 For these reasons the municipal Council of Johannesburg in the early
 1930s was favourably disposed to embarking on a major project of slum
 elimination. The Slums Act had significantly extended their powers by
 granting the right of expropriation of whole suburbs, and of the
 expropriation of both land and buildings.18 Armed with new legislative
 and fiscal power three methods of slum removal were open to the Council's
 slum committee.
 i) They could act indirectly and rezone, thus enforcing a change in land
 use from residential to industrial purposes.
 ii) They could act directly, evict, but rehouse the displaced people,
 iii) They could act directly and expropriate, evicting residents before
 finding an alternative non-residential use for the land.
The most cost effective of the options was the first. This policy was
 adopted in New Doornfontein. The success of this strategy ensured its
 repetition in a number of suburbs close to the C.B.D. Most notable was
 Ferreiras, where the Government's purchase of a tract of land for the,new
 Magistrate's Court drew the remark from the Medical Officer of Health that \
 there would be no need to evict "the indigent coloureds".
 It would merely be a matter of time before the slums were gradually
 eliminated and different people...agents and solicitors... were
 attracted to the area. "
 The second and more expensive option, but one consistent with the
 spirit of the Slums Act, was to expropriate slums and to rehouse the
 residents either on site or at some other location. The Slums Act was
 evoked thus in Bertrams, where slum clearance accompanied and facilitated
 race segregation; and again at Vrededorp where alternative accommodation
 was offered to white slumdwellers at the South Hills housing scheme.
 The third option for slum elimination, was simply to expropriate the
 area, pay compensation to the owners, and then find some non-residential
 use for the vacant land once the buildings were demolished. This is what
 happened at Prospect Township. The three slums, New Doornfontein,
 Bretrams and Prospect were the first to be tackled by the Johannesburg
 Council after 1934. The experience gleaned was instructive in directing
 later anti-slum action. Each suburb is now considered in turn to
 illustrate the divergent approaches employed to clear slum conditions.
 1) Industrial expansion in slum areas - New Doornfontein
 Even as a slum, the character if New Doornfontein was more commercial
 than residential.' This does not suggest that the population density of
 the suburb was any lower than other city slums. It was just that many
 rooms were actually compounds for factories located in the area.20 Many
 of these residents were therefore legally housed, though the actual number
who found shelter far exceeded the number of permits issued. In the case
 of F. W. Johnstone who sold manure: the municipal authorities claimed that
 53 "boys" could legitimately be housed; the company argued they had been
 told that 66 permits would be issued; while the number actually living
 on the stand was 108.21 A cartage firm housed 40 of its employees on the
 premises, it seems this practice was common.22 Overcrowding in New
 Doornfontein was exacerbated by the practice of sub-letting, thus while
 a landlord could honestly claim to having only rented to 35 families, 145
 were found on his property.21 It was not then that New Doornfontein lacked
 people, rather what distinguished this area was that the residential
 population had grown as industry grew and the two existed check by jowl.
 This created a suburb in which 143 of the 271 properties were slums that
 required demolition.211
 Delays in the proclamation of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act in New
 Doornfontein2* meant that initial anti-slum action in 1934 affected more
 Africans than people of any other racial classification.2' From the 59
 properties first declared slums in New Doornfontein, 468 of those families
 requiring rehousing were African, 106 coloured, 27 Indian and only 9
 white.27 The transformation of the racial character of the suburb in the
 months following must be attributed both to the Slums Act and the
 enforcement of the Natives (Urban Areas) Act. In addition to these imposed
 legal restrictions, the city Medical Officer of Health announced that in
 the two years following the Slums Act the conditions in New Doornfontein
 were at least 50 percent better. This he attributed to the encouragement
 of industry, and cited the arrival of 20 new factories in the area.28
 The decline in the African population of the suburb was of great
 concern for the slumlords. Those who had initially purchased properties
 with the intention of developing them for commercial purpose, but found
 slum racketeering so profitable that they persisted in that line of
 business.2* All over Johannesburg the trend in slum areas was for
coloureds and Indians to move quickly into premises vacated by victims
 of the Natives (Urban Areas) legislation. This salvaged slum investments
 and guaranteed a profitable, if less dramatic, rate of return for
 owners.30 In New Doornfontein this practice was interrupted by the
 Johannesburg Council's decision to condemn all wood and iron
 dwellings.3'
 Faced with the prospect of "ruiness loss", the larger property owners
 in New Doornfontein quickly organised to protect their interests.12 By
 arrangement with the Johannesburg Council they agreed to support the
 conversion of their property for commercial and industrial usage." At
 the same time these landlords persuaded smaller owners to sell them their
 properties on the grounds that even the low prices they would offer were
 likely to exceed the nominal value the Council would pay on
 expropriation.3" Both the large property owners 'and the Johannesburg
 Council benefited enormously by this arrangement. The landed capitalists
 were ensured not only the extension of their property holdings, but the
 use of their land for commercial purposes. This offered them a lower
 return than they had received on slums, but it presented a considerably
 more attractive proposition than being paid out municipal valuations on
 expropriated land. For the Johannesburg Council, rates and taxes on the
 rezoned land offered to swell city coffers, and precluded the payment of
 compensation.35 Kor this reason even Counsellor Leveson, known in
 Bertrams for his championing of the importance of rehousing occurring
 simultaneously with slum clearances, supported the plan which precluded
 the establishment of alternative housing in the area.3'
 Z) A slum cjesrance scheme - Bertrams
 The transformation of the residential suburb of Bertrams from a slum
 harbouring much of the city's coloured and Indian population, to a model
 public housing scheme for poor whites took only five years. The
 Johannesburg Council's application of slum clearance legislation to this
 10
area situated only one mile east of the city centre was a thinly disguised
 effort to impose residential segregation. While embracing the provisions
 of the Slums Act that called for the rehousing of slum occupants, the
 Council carefully selected whites only for their rehousing programme. The
 remainder of the suburb's predominantly coloured population was subjected
 to treatment so atrocious that it made a mockery of claims 10 a
 humanitarian motivation for slum clearances.
 Insanitary conditions first developed in Bertrams as a consequence of
 the municipal practice of granting exemption certificates to Africans.37
 The shortage of municipal accommodation, and the demand of employerb for
 worker proximity had prompted the Johannesburg Council to issue licences,
 or exemption certificates, for Africans to reside in the white
 suburbs.38 While the presence of Africans in Bertrams originated with this
 practice there is little doubt that, like all the other inner city slum
 areas, the actual population extended rar beyond legally exempted
 residents.J9
 Delays in the proclamation of the Native:, ilriun Areas i Act le.ft a
 large number of Africans in Bertrams undisturbed until well into the
 1930s."0 Once the Act had been enforced in l')3i- and 1935 and the African
 population relocated to the new Orlando scheme,*?' the slum rooms were
 quickly reoccupied by coloureds.*2 It was as a predominantly coloured slum
 that Bertrams came under Che spotlight of the. 1034 legislation. In the
 same year as the Slums Act was promulgated '5~> properties in the suburb
 were declared slums.1*3 Some indication of the racial composition of the
 area is provided by the number of families that the Council estimated
 would be involved in these first slum declarations in the city. Of the
 149 families, 96 or 64 percent were coloured, ':/i were white, 10 were
 Indian and 10 African.''''
 11
Despite the insecurity living in Bertrams meant for people of colour
 from 1934 (once it was known that the area was to be cleared for a white
 housing scheme), the population continued to swell. When the New
 Doornfontein yards were cleared in 1935 the coloured population in
 Bertrams increased dramatically.'"5 This growth in the coloured population
 was acknowledged officially by the Council. They estimated that whereas
 the coloured population requiring rehousing from slums was 79 families
 in 1935, by 1937 163 families were involved.*6 The probability that
 official figures understated the extent of the .coloured presence in
 Bertrams is suggested by the participation of some 300 representatives
 in the Bertrams Coloured and Indian Residents Association, who claimed
 that the removal involved 500 residents.1"7
 The Bertrams Council housing scheme constructed to provide for evicted
 white slum dwellers, simultaneously demonstrated the authority's flagrant
 disregard for the shelter needs of blacks trapped in slum conditions. The
 dimensions of the accommodation crisis that existed, particularly for
 coloureds and Indians, the time of the slum clearances, is highlighted
 by the plight of the black population of Bertrams once slum clearance was
 implemented.
 In the proclaiming of Bertrams as a slum all but two properties were
 declared. Twenty acres of land were expropriated under the provisions
 of the Slums Act and Chen purchased by the Council on a private individual
 agreement basis at a cost of ?127 000." Before the construction of the
 Maurice Freeman sub-economic housing scheme could begin, however, the
 existing population had to be removed. Eviction notices were served on
 the coloured and Indian residents in September 19361"9 but the lack of any
 alternative accommodation forced the Council to postpone the removal. It
 was agreed that until accommodation at Prospect could be found, tenancy
 at Bertrams would be extended on a weekly basis.50
 12
This apparently amicable resolution erupii'd only a few months later
 as the conflict between the Johannesburg Council, who wished to press
 ahead with building the Maurice Freeman scheme; and the colou-ed and
 Indian population who had nowhere to go once evicted from Bertrams, was
 made public. In apparent recognition of the Mack tenants dilemma, the
 Council, in January granted a three month reprieve on coloured and Indian
 residence in Bertrams.51 At a public meeting ihu s:nne week the Residents
 Association responded with a deceleration to the effect that coloured and
 Indian tenants would be forced to remain in their existing homes until
 the Council could provide alternative housing within three or four miles
 of the city.52 Within days the Johannesburg .ii.thori t ies acted to squash
 all opposition to their removal project. Invoking section 29 sub-section
 2 of the Slums Act the Council pointed out tlut the lack of sufficient
 alternative accommodation was not sufficient grounds for failing to
 comply with slum removal. They argued furthermore
 It cannot be denied that the residents of this area have known of
 the Council's intention for nearly two years dnd in many cases, or
 so it would appear have made no effort to obtain accommodation
 elsewhere.53
 Efforts to enforce the clearance of land required for the Council's
 own housing scheme involved a plan whereby coloured and Indian tenants
 were provided with temporary accommodation, from January 1937, coloured
 families of houses that were to be demolished uere offered single rooms
 in parts of the suburb not immediately required for building purposes.
 The temporary nature of this accommodation was stressed, arid a deadline
 of the end of April 1937 imposed on continued occupant, y.5 "* Although burnt;
 50 families were housed by the Council in this w.-iy,'5 it is clear from
 the confidential correspondence of the Medical Officer of Health and Lhe
 City Engineer that this facility was offered reluctantly. The preferred
 action of the city fathers would have been for lhe ilum dwellers, of their
 own accord, to relocate to other slum areas .sc According to these senior
 city officials the coloured population of Bertrams was pursuing a
 "deliberately obstructionist" policy towards the clearance project.57 The
 13
advice of the officials to the threatened population was to find shelter
 in Ferreirias, Doornfontein and other yards, despite the fact that the
 Council were even then proposing similar slum removals in those areas."
 If the Johannesburg Council thought that their provision of temporary
 accommodation and the advice of available alternative slum accommodation
 would persuade the remnants of the coloured people in Bertrams to move,
 they were wrong. In at least one slum yard, Kowalasky's yard, despite the
 fact that conditions were held to be even worse than in the notorious
 Prospect Township, the residents organised to resist the removal.6'
 It appears that the 10 families who were tenants of Kowalasky's yard
 and another 54 families from the rest of the suburb refused the Council's
 offer of temporary rooms in Bertrams. The Council it seems turned a blind
 eye to the structures where these people were living until after the end
 of April, although they pushed ahead with the demolition of stables,
 stores and workshops on the premises.60 In the end the eviction and
 demolition of the shacks at Kowalasky's yard was implemented by Mr
 Kowalasky himself,01 and by May the ground was free for Council
 construction.62 In other parts of the suburb the Council itself enforced
 their May schedule and demolished remaining buildings regardless of
 whether or not tenants had left the premises.63 Residents sent a telegram
 of protest to the Union's Secretary of Public Health. The evictions went
 ahead. At this point the Johannesburg Council established a tent camp for
 the coloured residents of Bertrams on the Heidelberg road on vacant land
 abutting Prospect.6I<
 3) Slum expropciation - Prospect Township
 Prospect Township was first dealt with as a slum as early as 1926 when
 the majority of the premises were pronounced public nuisances under the
 municipal local government ordinance.65 The area soon reverted to a slum
partly because the Council refused to invest any money in the
 infrastructure. This resulted in dirt roads, no sanitary services and
 inadequate facilities for draining of water" for a population of more
 than 7 000. Influx to the area following the Natives (Urban Areas)
 proclamations also precipitated slum conditions and chronic
 overcrowding." The ambiguous status of the township for use as a black
 residential area further contributed to the persistence of the slum as
 owners were reluctant to invest in improvements. One of the few areas
 to escape immediate proclamation under the Natives. (Urban Areas' .V. , the
 City Council initially wished to develop Prospect as an African
 township.68 Caught in the myriad of legislation governing racial
 allocation of land the Council soon discovered09 that this would not be
 possible: Prospect was situated on land proclaimed for mining purposes
 and as such fell under the jurisdiction of the Gold Law. Under this law,
 occupation by persons of colour, other than domestic servants, was
 prohibited.'? Despite full knowledge of the restriction the Johannesburg
 authorities continued to utilise Prospect for the shelter of blacks for
 a number of years. Even after the township wns proclaimed under the
 Natives (Urban Areas) Act a system of liceni.o>. ..-.M-mpted the stand holders
 of Prospect from the provisions on payment of a fee of Is. per room let
 to Africans.7'
 Throughout the 1930s, Prospect served as tin- dumping ground for blacks
 removed from white residential areas under the auspices of either the
 Natives (Urban Areas) Act or the Slums Act. The Council's determination
 to minimise costs and ensure segregation in working class districts
 informed the demise of perhaps the most infamous of Johannesburg's slums,
 Prospect. Unlike the previous two case studies, the manner in which
 Prospect was demolished found no echo in Inu-r removals in the city.
 Unlike New Doornfontein, Prospect Township, offered little by way of
 an industrial or commercial incentive, despite its proximity to town and
 15
the railway line. Poor drainage because of clay soil72 and the fact that
 not even minimal services had been established undermined the potential
 of the area. Only the slumlords were interested in Prospect: they
 received upwards of 35 percent on their investments of wood and iron
 shacks.73 These owners were keen to see the persistence of the rental
 relationship that guaranteed profits equal to those accruing to slumlords
 of even New York's worst buildings.7" In an effort to maintain Prospect
 the slumlords willingly agreed to abide by any changes the Medical Officer
 of Health required of them.75 They went even further to propose a scheme
 of co-operation between owners and the Council.76
 That the Council had no intention of allowing the slum to persist was
 clear. The proclamation of the township under the Natives (Urban Areas)
 Act in 1935 and the introduction of a monthly licensing system fuelled
 rumours that the area was about to be expropriated as a slum.77 Even
 before this date the status of the land was unclear and numerous requests
 for the Council to make plain their intentions were received.7* Events
 which suggest the Council had always seen the possibility of expropriation
 were those such as the refusal in early 1935 to licence the premises of
 a new block of flats built specifically for Africans, and the rejection
 of all new licence applications for exemption from the Natives (Urban
 Areas) Act.79
 Unsurprisingly, by the middle of 1935, 45 stands (involving 20 owners)
 were brought before the slum court." This was the third area to be dealt
 with by the Johannesburg Council under the Slums Act." As in the other
 slum decelerations in the city, owners of slum properties challenged the
 decision of the Council.*2 The appeal of the Prospect slumlords was
 strengthened by the fact that not all members of the Slums Board felt it
 wise to expropriate Prospect. Most notable in his denunciations was
 Ballenden the Manager of the Native Affairs Department." In addition the
 owners felt their case should be upheld as, until the time of the hearing
 16
(and in fact after the decision to expropriate was taken) the Council
 continued to utilise the slum quarters at Prospect."1 These factors
 notwithstanding, the suburb was declared a slum and its total demolition
 and expropriation upheld.*6
 Three motivations for the decision to press ahead with expropriation
 of the Prospect properties can be found. First, the official justification
 offered concerned the importance of acting to remove an area that over
 the years had been a menace to the Public Health Department and the
 police.'6 Second, by 1938, when Prospect was cleared, a large proportion
 of the houses at Orlando were completed and were available for
 occupation."' Thus the function Prospect had served as a half-way house
 ?in the segregation process was no longer urgently required. Finally, an
 alternative function for the land was found. Fn 1937 Prospect was sold
 to the South African Railways for use as a goods yard.88 In a happy
 co-incidence for the municipal powers the Prospect site was close to South
 Hills, the area allocated for the largest white public housing
 development. The proximity of Prospect (which became the new Kazerne goods
 yard where many of the poorest whites worked) to the proposed public
 housing development provided the justification for the subsequent Council
 clearance of the all white slum of Vrededorp.89
 17
Figure 3: Racial composition of families requiring rehousing from inner
 city slum areas, 1941.
 18
Conclusion
 The slum removals of New Doornfontein, Bertrams and Prospect are
 particularly significant to an understanding of the process of urban
 removal and racial segregation in the South African city. Details changed,
 but Che basic approaches adopted in these first anti-slum projects
 embarked upon by the Johannesburg Council under the Slums Act, set the
 pattern for later removals. Although the Slums Act was never agjjn
 d-irectly used in a clearance scheme such as Bertrams, the rei ,?alb of
 Sophiacown in the IO.TOS, Albertsville in the 1960s, and Vrededorp in the
 1370s carried the impress of the Bertrams experience. Since then, the
 clearance of land occupied by blacks for the benefit of working class
 whites, has became a familiar theme of this racially divided society.
 The outcry precipitated by race-based removals such as thosi' at
 Bertrams, Sophiatown or Vrededorp was never as stron,; as the reactio:. to
 the less obvious', but equally cruel removaJb sparked by apparently net: :al
 forces of industrial and commercial expansion. The C3se of \'ev
 i
 Doornfontein demonstrates that from as early a.-, the I'/hus the Johannesburg
 Council actively adopted a policy of slum removal by encouraging the
 demise of residential land use through rezoning for business. In a pattern
 detectable all over the world, the ramifications of thuse measures ior
 the slum population of Johannesburg were particularly harsh. In inis
 context capitalist growth occurred most directly at the expense of the
 black working class uho's shelter alternatives were U'stricted by racist
 control of land allocation.
 In instigating slum clearance projects i.n the 1930s, the Johannesburg
 Council \\.ad set three objectives. First, to ensure industrial expansion,
 second to guarantee the removal of any menace to public health, and
 finally to enforce residential segregation. In terms of the first of
 these, industrial expansion, the boom of the 1930s, cut short only by tne
war, does not seem to have been impeded in any significant way as slums
 gave way to office buildings. For the second and third objectives the
 results were less impressive. Unsanitary conditions were not abolished
 in Johannesburg. Far from it, the slum problem grew, both within the city
 (Figure 3),9? and in the townships. Conditions in some sections
 deteriorated still further as the refugees of slum clearances crowded
 together. Added to this a rapidly rising population placed further
 pressures on already stressed working class housing facilities. As to the
 desire to ensure residential segregation, the Slums Act had extended the
 might of the state in imposing racial cleavage. The final separation of
 people along lines of colour was, however, not completed until the
 National Party introduced Group Area legislation in the years after World
 War Two.
 20
Notes
 ; l Pirie, G.H. 1985: Housing municipal African labour in Johannesburg,
 1904-1963, Unpublished paper, Department of Geography and
 Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand,
 Johannesburg. A number of smaller companies, as well as all the
 ' large mining concerns had established ptivate compounds for their
 labourers. See, Kagan, N. 1978: African settlements in the
 ; Johannesburg area, Unpublished MA dissertation, University of the
 Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
 1
  Union'of South Africa, 1920: Report of t}ie Housing Committee, U.G.
 4-1920.
 '* City of Johannesburg, 1936: Repprt of the fledical Officer of Health,
 1936-1937; Helleman, E. 1949: Handbook^ on Race Relations in South
 . Afr.ica, Oxford University Press, Cape Town.
 "* Koch, E. 1983: Doornfontein and its African working class, 1914-1935,
 a study in popular culture in Johannesburg, Unpublished MA
 j dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
 ?:
  t
 " City of Johannesburg, 1937: Report of the Manager Non European Affairs
 Department, 1936-1937.
 '.' Hansard, 1949: col. 6574. Figures quoted for'-vacant dwellings in Orlando
 are: 1933-667, 1934-1105, 1935-873, 1936r169, 1937-312.
 .
  7
  Union of South Africa, 1935: Report of the Medical Officer of Health,
 \ 1934-1935.
 ' City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File 4574 A, Special Report of the Medical Officer of Health to the
 Special Committee on slums and housing, -13/2/1934.
 ?* Parnell, S. 1987: The provision of council housing for whites in
 Johannesburg, 1920-1955, Unpublished MA dissertation, University of
 ; the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
 '.
  l
 ? City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File 4574 A, Special Report of the Medical Officer of Hea1 .h to the
 Special Committee on slums and housing, 13/2/1934.
 ' " City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File A 8652, Meeting of the Departmental Committee of the Town Clerk,
 * 14/4/1944.
 ?
  li
  Bahana, S. and Pachai, B. (eds) 1984: A Documentary History of Indians
 in South Africa, David Phillip, Cape Town.
 13
  The Gold Law No 3, 1885, extended as the Precious Minerals and Base
 .? Metals Act (Gold Law), Law 35 of 1908. ;
 . " Parnell, S. 1987: The provision of council housing for whites in
 Johannesburg, 1920-1955, Unpublished MA dissertation, University of
 the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
 15
  Freund, B. 1985: The social character of secondary industry in South
 Africa, 1915-1945 (with special ref to the Witwatersrand), Paper
 presented to the African Studies Institute Seminar, University of
 i the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
 21
18
  Koch, E. 1983: Doornfontein and its African working class 1914-1935,
 a study in popular culture in Johannesburg, Unpublished MA
 dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
 " Parnell, S. 1987: The provision of council housing for whites in
 Johannesburg, 1920-1955, Unpublished MA dissertation, University of
 the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
 " Slums Act (No 53) of 1934.
 11
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File 27/3/4, Transcript of an interview between the Medical Officer
 of Health and two Sunday Express Journalists, 14/4/1936.
 10
  Rand Daily nail, 8/2/1935; 24/8/1935.
 21
  Star, 7/2/35.
 22
  Rand Daily Hail, 13/2/1935.
 21
  Rand Daily Hail, 7/2/1935
 24
  Star, 25/3/1935.
 2B
  Koch, E. 1983: Doornfontein and its African working class, 1914-1935,
 a study of popular culture in Johannesburg, Unpublished MA
 dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg;
 Municipal Magazine, June 1933, p.32.
 2t
  90 percent of the first evictions from Doornfontein were Africans, Rand
 Daily Mail, 24/8/1935.
 27
  City of Johannesburg, 1935: Report of the Medical Officer of Health,
 1934-1935.
 21
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File 27/3/34, Transcript of an interview between the Medical Officer
 of Health and two Sunday Express Journalist, 14/4/1936
 23
  Rand Daily Mail, 7/2/1935.
 " New Doornfontein property owners made the value of the property in 6
 months, Star, 24/12/1934. The fact that coloured residents moved
 into vacated premises was often reported, c.f. Star, 6/2/1935.
 31
  Rand Daily Mail, 25/1/1935.
 12
  Star, 23 /1/1935.
 JJ
  Rand Daily Mail, 1/3/1935.
 14
  Star, 1/3/1935.
 35
  The Johannesburg Council payed 30 percent plus over the municipal
 valuation of.a property if it expropriated the premises. The cost
 of demolition or reconstruction if they did not expropriate were
 borne by the registered owner.
 3t
  Rand Daily Mail, 1/3/1935; 13/2/1935.
 22
"" Rand Daily Hail, 23/3/1935. ,
 ..
 Jl
  Morris, P. 1981: A History of Black Housing In South Africa, South
 Africa Foundation, Johannesburg.
 ?
 JS
  City of Johannesburg, 1934: Report of the Non European Affairs
 Department, 1933-1934. In 1934 the number of exemption licence
 issued for Johannesburg was 38414, a further 43000 people were
 '. assumed to be living illegally in white suburbs.
 s *
 "?."' Municipal tlagazine, June 1933, p.32.
 .*' Star, 5/10/1935; City of Johannesburg,; City Health Department
 Archives, Unsorted Box, File A 9829, Ext.ract from minutes of the
 Public Health Committee, 5/1/1937.
 ** City of Johannesburg, 1935: Report of the^edical Officer of Health,
 1934-1935. :
 " Ibid
 uk
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 * File A 9828, Extract from the minutes of the Public Health Committee,
 5/1/1937.
 15
  Ibid ?
 !*6 City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 Unlabled File, Letter from Rev. Sigamoney of the Coloured and Indian
 ? Residents Society to the Medical Officer of Health, 27/1/1937.
 y , y
 Medical Officer of Health, 1938-1939.
 , >
 '*' City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File A 982S, Extract from uhe Minutes of the Public Health Committee,
 5/1/1937.
 > s Ibid
 '
 6
 ? City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File A 9828, Joint Report by the City Engiheer and the Acting Medical
 Officer of Health to the Public Health Committee, 25/2/1937.
 51
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 Unlabled File, Letter from Rev. Sigamoney of the Bertrams Coloured
 and Indian Residents Society to the Medical Officer of Health,
 27/1/1937. .;
 .
 %1
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File A 9828, Joint report by the City Engineer and the Acting Medical
 ' Officer of Health to the Public Health Committee, 25/2/1937.
 ;5 3 City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Uns. ^ced Box,
 ?': File A 9828, Draft of special report by the Medical Officer of Health
 .j, and the City Engineer to the Public .^Health Committee on slum
 '. clearance scheme - Bertrams, 22/3/1937. -
 s
 *
 6<4
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, L'nsorted Box,
 i File A 9828, Lists of coloured and Indian families to be housed
 compiled by P.Squires the Senior Housing Officer for the Medical
 Officer of Health, 25/2/1937. >?
 ; ?. 23
 i ?
55
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File A 9828, Personal letter from Medical Officer of Health to Sir
 Edward Thornton the Secretary for Public Health, 26/4/1937.
 "' City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File A 9828, Draft of special report by the Medical Officer of Health
 and the City Engineer to the Public Health Committee on slum
 clearance in Bretrams, 22/3/1937.
 s7
  Ibid
 6<
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File 27/3/4, Document entitled Slum Conditions in Ferreirastown
 (Western End), 1936; Municipal Magazine, February 1937, p.9.
 59
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File A 9828, Letter from N. Werksman to the Town Clerk re stands
 366/7/8 and 371/2 Bertrams - S. Kowalasky, 7/5/1937.
 80
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File A 9828, Letter from Porter for the Town Clerk to Werksman,
 12/2/1937.
 61
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File A 9828, Letter from the Senior Housing Inspector to the Medical
 Officer of Health, 20/5/1937.
 62
  Ibid
 65
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File A 9828, Letter from the Union Secretary for Public Health to.
 the Johannesburg Town CLerk, 25/5/1937.
 611
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File A 9828, Special Joint report of the City Engineer, Medical
 Officer of Health, Manager Non European Housing and Native
 Administration Department on temporary housing accommodation for Non
 Europeans displaced from the area expropriated by the council for a
 sub-economic housing scheme for Europeans in Bertrams, 21/5/1937.
 65
  Rand Daily Hail, 30/11/1935
 66
  Rand Daily Mail, 14/6/1935.
 67
  Star, 11/5/1935, 6736 Africans were accommodated in 1684 rooms in
 Prospect, in addition to these people a number of coloureds and
 Indians lived in the suburb {Star, 18/6/1935; Municipal Magazine,
 May 1937, p.7.).
 61
  Rand Daily Mail, 9/5/1935; 30/11/1935.
 69
  Rand Daily Mail, 11/6/1935.
 70
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Unsorted Box,
 File 27/3/4, Transcript of an interview between two Sunday Times
 journalists and the Medical Officer of Health, 14/4/1936.
 71
  Rand Daily Mail, 30/11/35.
 24
72
  Rand Daily Hail, 4/5/35.
 71
  Rand Daily Mail, 11/6/1935; 12/6/1935.
 7
 * Riis, J. A. 1971: How the Other Half Lives, Dover, New York. (Reprinted
 from the 1890 edition.)
 75
  Rand Daily Hail, 26/4/1935; 30/11/1935.
 76
  Rand Daily Mail, 15/6/1935; Star, 18/6/1')35.
 77
  Rand Daily Mail, 5/3/1935. The previous year 77 properties had been
 declared slums (City of Johannesburg, Report of the Medical Officer
 of Health, 1.934 -1935), but the status of the area continued to be
 ambiguous.
 78
  City of Johannesburg, 1936: Report of th<>. Medical Officer of Health,
 1935-1936, action on 71 of the 77 properties declared in the previous
 year were held over pending a decision on- the future of the township,
 Rand Daily Mail, 12/6/1935; Star, 6/6/1935.
 79
  Rand Daily Mail, 14/6/1935.
 80
  Rand Daily Mail, 11/6/1935.
 81
  City of Johannesburg, 1935: Report of the Medical Officer of Health
 82
  Municipal Magazine, July 1937, p. 8.
 83
  Rand Daily Mail, 19/6/1935.
 8
 * Although actively involved in removing the Prospect population in 1937.
 (At times up to 500 left for Orlando in a day while the
 Coronat: ionvi 11 e scheme was dubbed the Prospc-ct - Coronat ionvi 1 le
 project on account of the large proportion us" the nov house;, that
 were filled by inhabitants of the old slum. Despite this the
 Johannesburg Council were simultaneously moving new Bertrams
 refugees to Prospect.)
 85
  City of Johannesburg, 1937: Report of the Medical Officer of Health,
 1936-1937.
 86
  Ibid
 87
  City of Johannesburg, 1937: Report of the Manager of the Kon European
 Affairs Department, 1936-1937.
 88
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department Archives, Box 29, File B
 2246, Letter signed J.J. Page, Chairman, '(4.1937; Extract oi the
 supplementary report of the Public Health Committee, 9/4/1937.
 89
  Parnell, S. 1967: The provision of ,-ouncil housing for u'hitus in
 Johannesburg, 1920-1955, Unpublished MA dissertation, University of
 the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
 90
  City of Johannesburg, City Health Department. Aichivcjs, I'nsorted box,
 file 9608, A survey of slums, 1941.