Housing Programs for the Poor in Addis Ababa: Urban Commons as a Bridge between Spatial and Social

Introduction

The housing crisis in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, highlights the tension between rapid urbanization and inadequate housing solutions for low-income residents. With the city’s population surging due to rural-to-urban migration, the shortage of affordable housing has become acute. Programs like the “Integrated Housing Development Program” (IHDP) and kebele housing systems aim to address these challenges. However, these initiatives often fail to balance spatial planning with the social realities of low-income communities. This paper explores the evolution of housing strategies in Addis Ababa, emphasizing the importance of participatory approaches and the integration of social practices into urban planning.

The Housing Crisis in Addis Ababa

Addis Ababa faces a severe housing deficit, with estimates in 2017 indicating a shortfall of 700,000 units. Over 80% of the city’s housing consists of informal structures, many of which lack basic amenities like water and electricity. This crisis is rooted in rapid urban migration and the legacy of state ownership of urban land under the “Derg” regime. Informal housing in the city includes kebele units—state-owned legal housing for low-income residents—and illegal settlements on the outskirts.

Kebele houses are densely packed and often lack sanitation infrastructure, but they foster strong social networks through shared spaces and common practices. These social connections are critical for survival in low-income communities, yet they are often overlooked in housing redevelopment projects.

Transition from Kebele Housing to Condominiums in Housing Programs

The IHDP, launched in 2005, aimed to replace kebele housing with modern condominium units. By 2019, over 175,000 units had been constructed across Addis Ababa. While these condominiums provide improved physical living conditions, they often fail to accommodate the communal lifestyles of former kebele residents. Key challenges include:

• Financial Barriers: Many low-income residents cannot afford the initial payments for condominiums, forcing them to sublet their units and return to informal housing.
• Loss of Social Networks: The design of condominiums often neglects shared spaces, which disrupts the communal bonds integral to kebele life.
• Spatial Displacement: Most condominium complexes are located on the urban periphery, far from residents’ workplaces and social networks, increasing transportation costs and economic instability.

Participatory Planning and Commoning Practices in Housing Programs

The IHDP’s top-down approach has been criticized for failing to involve residents in decision-making. Participatory planning could address this gap by integrating the cultural and social practices of low-income communities into housing designs. Commoning practices, such as shared courtyards and community spaces, are vital for fostering social cohesion and resilience. Examples include:

• Coffee Ceremonies: Central to Ethiopian culture, these gatherings enhance social bonds and could be facilitated through the inclusion of communal spaces in housing projects.
• Neighborhood-Level Enterprises: Small-scale businesses, often run from kebele homes, support livelihoods and could be incorporated into new housing designs.

Challenges of Urban Renewal in Housing Programs

Urban renewal initiatives in Addis Ababa often prioritize aesthetic and economic objectives over the needs of low-income residents. This focus has led to the gentrification of inner-city areas, displacing kebele residents to peripheral locations. Such strategies exacerbate inequalities and undermine the city’s social fabric. The lack of infrastructure, particularly transport and utilities, further limits the viability of peripheral housing developments.

Toward a Negotiated Planning Approach in Housing Programs

To address these challenges, Addis Ababa’s housing policies must adopt a “negotiated planning” approach. This strategy emphasizes collaboration among stakeholders, including government agencies, residents, and private developers. Key principles include:

1. Community Participation: Engaging residents in the planning and design processes ensures that housing solutions reflect their needs and practices.
2. Integration of Social Practices: Housing designs should accommodate communal activities and economic enterprises.
3. Use of Local Materials and Techniques: Leveraging traditional construction methods, such as mud-based chika walls, can reduce costs and maintain cultural identity.
4. Infrastructure Development: Investments in transport and utilities are essential to make peripheral housing viable.

Conclusion

The housing crisis in Addis Ababa underscores the need for a holistic approach that bridges spatial planning with social realities. Programs like the IHDP must evolve to prioritize participatory processes and common practices, fostering inclusive and sustainable urban development. By incorporating the voices and traditions of low-income communities, Addis Ababa can develop housing solutions that enhance both living conditions and social cohesion.

For further reading:
Housing Programs for the Poor in Addis Ababa: Urban Commons

Similar post on ACASH