Expansion needed: Supporters of the sale of the Cape Town International Convention Centre argue that if the
City continues to own it, the funding obligation to grow it falls partly on the public purse. Photo: Discott
The Good Hope Centre is finally expected to go up for sale, and to be honest, it is long overdue. The City of Cape Town has announced that it plans to auction about 50 City-owned properties early next year, and many people hope this site will be on that list. It has earned a second life, and the surrounding precinct deserves a real upgrade.
The building has struggled for almost 20 years. I once went to a John Newman concert there, and it was depressing. The acoustics were terrible and even the singer commented on the state of the venue. That night confirmed to me that the site has been underperforming for far too long.
The Good Hope Centre itself is a beautiful piece of history, with a classic domed exhibition hall designed by Italian architect Pier Luigi Nervi. The first discussions between Nervi and the City took place in 1964. The project was approved in the next decade, and it finally opened in 1977.
The site is 2.4 hectares. It includes the central dome, three adjoining halls and both surface and underground parking. There is heritage to respect, and any future developer will need to work with that. Keeping the iconic dome is an obvious requirement.
But outside the heritage, the opportunity is massive. Residential, commercial and retail can all work well here in a mixed-use development.
From one point of view, the argument for selling seems straightforward. The City cannot unlock the full economic potential of a site like this on its own. Redeveloping a complex, strategically located property takes specialised skill, time and money, and that usually comes from the private sector.
Property developers know how to turn an old asset into something that adds value to the economy. They also carry the risk and pay the rates once the development is complete. In theory, that frees the City to focus on its core job, which is delivering services and maintaining infrastructure. And the City then earns property rates from the property forever.
But there is also a more cautious side to this conversation. When the government sells land, it loses control of how that land is used in the future. It also gives up the long-term revenue that comes with owning a profitable asset. Some people worry that selling too much public property now could limit future opportunities for social housing, community facilities or public projects that only the state can deliver.
There is also the trust issue. Not everyone believes that private developers always act in the best interests of the wider community, especially in a city where spatial inequality remains a real problem.
Members in the government also only take up tenure for so many terms, so what is to happen when the city dealmakers disappear?
This is why the Good Hope Centre debate has become a symbol of something bigger. It is no longer just about a neglected building. It is about the long-term priorities of the City. What should the government keep? What should it let go. And where does the balance sit between financial discipline and public responsibility?
The same split is visible in the conversation around the City’s plan to sell its majority share in the Cape Town International Convention Centre. The CTICC is a different asset from the Good Hope Centre. It is successful, profitable and important for the Cape Town economy.
The City of Cape Town owns the majority stake (72.7%) in the CTICC. The remaining shareholders include the Western Cape government (22.2%) and SunWest International (5.1%).
Over the years, it has helped pump close to R67bn into South Africa’s GDP, added about R58 billion to the Western Cape economy and supported more than 169 000 jobs.
It has also positioned Cape Town as one of the strongest global destinations for large conferences and events. Cape Town has well secured its position as the conference capital of South Africa, so we can expect demand for conference centres like the CTICC and others to continue to boom over the next few years.
Supporters of the sale argue that, despite all that success, the centre is reaching capacity and will need to expand soon. The expansion requires billions, and if the City continues to own the CTICC, the funding obligation falls partly on the public purse.
The mayor argues that the centre is run like a private business, that the City has no operational role, and that selling now would free up almost R1bn for service delivery. And in a province where infrastructure needs are growing faster than the budget, that money matters.
The City of Cape Town spends the most on infrastructure when compared to any other municipality in South Africa, but that is still not enough, as growing pressure from the rapid influx of people moving to Cape Town continues.
Opponents see it differently. They question why the City would sell a profitable asset at a time when public finances are under pressure. They also worry about losing future
revenue streams from a centre that has proven its economic value.
Some ask whether it makes sense for the public to build something for 20 years, only to hand it to private shareholders once it becomes successful. Others are concerned about strategic control and whether the City can safeguard public interests if it no longer holds the majority stake.
Both sides raise valid points. The truth is that selling public assets is not a purely financial decision. It is a value decision. It forces us to ask what kind of city we want to build. Do we want a lean local government that focuses tightly on services and infrastructure while leaving development to the private sector? Or do we want a City that is willing to own, manage and invest in long-term assets for the sake of future generations?
The Good Hope Centre and the CTICC may be two very different properties, but the questions they raise are the same. How does Cape Town balance financial sustainability with public responsibility? How do we unlock value today without limiting opportunity tomorrow? And who should carry the power to shape what the city becomes.
In the end, the real debate is not about selling or keeping. It is about what we expect the City to prioritise. That is the conversation we should be having. Because once public land is gone, it does not come back. And once the money is spent, the choices we make today will echo in the Cape Town we build for the next 50 years.