The South African Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) was initiated to provide subsidised housing for low‐income families. However, the programme faced challenges in establishing adequate technical guidelines and standards, resulting in subpar housing quality. This article discusses the multifaceted nature of subsidised housing design, emphasising the importance of incorporating technical housing standards as well as the spatial needs of residents based on their context (at both domestic and neighbourhood scales). The article focuses on the K206 housing RDP project in Alexandra, Johannesburg, as a case study that transitioned from generic technical standards to a resident‐responsive design scheme that was inspired by the backyard room incremental expansions that were already prevalent in the Alexandra context. A critical review of South Africa’s RDP housing design technical standards and policy is explored. The article also examines the density standards and allowances for incremental expansions introduced by the K206 project, analysing data derived from fieldwork observations, interviews, and the spatial analysis of 26 dwelling units. The study’s findings underscore the significance of maintaining an equilibrium between technical standards and resident‐responsive design decisions. The results demonstrate that tailoring the RDP housing design solutions to unique contextual needs can significantly elevate the quality of life of residents concerning income generation and flexibility for incremental expansion. However, this balance is delicate and disparities between the RDP technical standards and user‐initiated development over time also have the potential to ultimately impair residents’ living spaces.@en

State-subsidised housing in the Global South often receives criticism for ­failing to meet the economic needs of low-income citizens. The K206 housing project, situated in Alexandra, Johannesburg, stands out as a unique case by not only addressing housing requirements but also addressing the economic concerns of its low-income homeowners. This response included the incorporation of state initiated formal built-in rental rooms and provisions for incremental extensions to support income generation. This paper aims to explore both of these options that allowed residents to use housing as a means of income generation, and examines household strategies and the motivations behind using these options for extra income. Twenty-one resident interviews and spatial analyses provided insights on how the K206 housing facilitated income-­generating opportunities for its residents and analyses whether households capitalised on these opportunities and the factors influencing their decisions to do so. The findings were that state built-in backyard rooms did not generally work for income generation due to poor allocation strategies that caused conflict. Incremental extensions, even in unintended locations proved more effective for generating income. Incrementally added backyard rooms served multiple purposes and had the potential to generate income to address cash shortfalls, contribute to ­pension plans, and facilitate investments.@en

Spatial planning in South Africa has historically been used as a tool to either connect or divide the population. The new democratic South Africa brought the promise of fully-subsidized housing for low-income households. The right to adequate housing was highly charged because of the country’s political history and complexity. This excerpt is a contribution towards the perspective of an architect when they are faced with the complexities of designing for mass low-income housing. It reveals the privilege, tensions and considerations in the author’s personal experience and her experience with these issues through visual explorations.@en