# data[].attributes.headline
Hake, Andrew. African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help City. London: Sussex University Press, 1977, Ch. 6 ‘The Other Urban Revolution’, and Ch. 11 ‘Urbanisation from Below’, pp. 93–100, 171–6.

# data[].attributes.subject
Hake, Andrew. African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help City. London: Sussex University Press, 1977, Ch. 6 ‘The Other Urban Revolution’, and Ch. 11 ‘Urbanisation from Below’, pp. 93–100, 171–6.

# data[].attributes.body
Upload/Write your thoughts here.

# data[].attributes.body
If the self-help city is a spontaneous solution to the failures of urban planning, what policies could be adopted to integrate these settlements without destroying the social and economic networks that uphold them?

# data[].attributes.body
In the text "African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help City," Andrew Hake illustrates a particular situation in the development of Nairobi. In this city, the gap between supply and demand has led to the creation of two types of development. The first is driven by institutions with a top-down approach, while the second one comes from the needs of citizens, following a bottom-up model. The text demonstrates the validity of both models. This example made me question our approach to urban development. The Western urban planning approach is focused on providing a set of rules or constraints that ensure the proper growth of a city. However, what we often fail to consider is that a city is an extremely complex organism, and it’s very difficult to fully understand all its dynamics and it’s funktioning. I began to wonder if there might be an alternative approach to urban planning. Should we perhaps move away from the original approach and offer a set of tools to develop a city, rather than a strict set of rules?

# data[].attributes.headline
Lars Niklas Ludes   Lludes@student.ethz.ch 

# data[].attributes.subject
Lars Niklas Ludes   Lludes@student.ethz.ch 

# data[].attributes.body
One question first:

Is the self-help city the true face of the urban future?

While working on and sifting through the very interesting chapters in "African Metropolis", it crystallised for me that the informal city is not just a side effect of uncontrolled growth, but a reaction to the failure of formal urban planning. In places where the modern sector is growing too slowly and the population can no longer find opportunities, alternative, hard-won structures are emerging beyond the formally authorised, which still give them a perspective and free space. Nairobi shows this clearly: housing is being created independently, jobs are being created outside of the official statistics, and yet this sector remains caught between tolerance and persecution. But why?

The Indian bazaar in Nairobi is a historic example of functioning urbanisation from below. Without central planning, without bureaucratic hurdles, an economically productive zone grew here, which was finally accepted only after it was destroyed by formalities and then rebuilt.

If it had been regulated, curtailed, forced into rigid rules, would it ever have become this engine of trade? Wouldn't it have to be recognised that if it is necessary for the people to work outside the rules, the rules no longer fitting properly?

The self-help city is in my opinion more than just a stopgap solution. It could be in my opinion a model for the future. Instead of viewing informal settlements as problem areas, I believe they should be legitimised as an urban strategy in their own right, as free spaces for growth, adaptation and individual initiative. Maybe sort of (“Sonderzonen”) Spezial Zones. Especially in times of massive population growth, we need more than just formal planning, we need urban zones in which urban development can unfold organically as long as no one is harmed.

So the final question for me arises: should we try to integrate the informal sector, or do formal cities need to become more informal again in order to generate alternative living space?

# data[].attributes.body
How is it possible that Nairobi’s city administrators failed to create more affordable housing options for its long-term residents—and even worsened the situation in the 1960s and 70s by demolishing self-built villages without offering alternative solutions?

This question highlights the struggles of the newly independent state, which had suffered under colonial occupation and faced many challenges after gaining independence.

Still, I asked myself: What were the city’s main struggles, and what were the biggest hurdles to providing better housing solutions? Was it primarily the ingrained influence of colonialist thinking, which disregarded the well-being of local residents? Or was it a lack of financial resources? A lack of knowledge? Or perhaps even a sense of helplessness in the face of the rapidly growing demand for housing?

Further, I asked myself what a more constructive reaction from the city administration toward the self-built settlements could have been? How could they have supported and strengthened the bottom-up initiatives of the residents?

Is there a way for the city and its residents to collaborate by blending bottom-up and top-down approaches—such as the city legally providing land and infrastructure while allowing residents to take the lead in development? Or would a lack of trust and understanding between both sides prevent the necessary social structures, communities, and informal economies to develop?

# data[].attributes.body
Has today's society still hasn't managed to find long lasting solutions for the self made cities, what new factors are holding the governments from taking the right actions into mesures?

As the population grows, the land gets more and more saturated, job finding more challenging and the segregation between the wealthy and the poor deeper. As an urban result, one can see the expansion of the modern city vs the self help city. The self help city, otherwise called informal settlement, is composed of temporary dwellings, where the residents don't own their land, are often unemployed and lack basic human needs. In Nairobi, Kenya, it is 37'000 people who were registered in 1970 to be living in those informal settlements, without any certainty of when they would get deported or if they'll ever get to own their land one day. The government sees these self made cities as an issue to be dealt with. Instead of installing a bottom up approach which could be beneficial for all those residents, it chooses a top down approach corrupted by factors as: social control, property ownership, abuse of power, false hope,...

Despite awful conditions, the self made cities have shown some positive outcomes such as: mutual aid, verbal communication, individual participation in the township's well being, and many more... I deeply think that this is due to the urban layout of those informal settlements: narrow streets, shared garden with the neighbours, open gates,... Whereas in the modern city one observe mostly gated communities and high security homes.

In today's society where everyone is so individualist, one can look up to those self made cities where neighbours hear and help each other out. Of course one cannot idealise those cities, however we have a lot to learn from one another.

The text describes the situation in Nairobi, Kenya, but this phenomenon can be seen around the globe (Bangladesh, South Africa, India,...).

# data[].attributes.body
It is interesting to see how Nairobi, like many other cities in the Global South, has the same issue between the modern, planned city center and the surrounding informal settlements. The formal city attracts people with its services, infrastructure, and job opportunities, but at the same time, it pushes many into informal settlements as their only housing option. These informal settlements are often seen by policymakers as a problem and as undesirable neighborhoods that should be removed. In doing so, their importance is continously overlooked. These mentioned and so-called self-help cities create their own urban identity, with informal businesses driving the local economy and shaping the architecture, which relies on whatever materials are available in the neighborhood. Their resilience also comes from their adaptability towards change.

What I understand is, that these neighborhoods are extremely vulnerable in their existence because they lack legal protection and recognition. The paper mainly looks at how this relationship between informal and formal parts of the city developed up to the 1970s. But since this time has passed, I wonder what has changed. Have there been efforts to integrate informal settlements and businesses, or are the same problems still there? It would be interesting to know if any real progress has been made.

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Hake describes self-help cities as developments with great potential. To truly understand Nairobi’s urban landscape, one must look beyond the modern city and consider informal settlements—areas growing faster, housing more people, and generating more jobs than the formal city. While these self-help communities face many challenges, they also create strong economic and social networks shaped by local conditions. Rather than being viewed solely as problems, they should be recognized as legitimate parts of the city. Top-down policies implemented by authorities often fail to offer real solutions and instead displace problems to other locations rather than improving existing conditions.

How can cities support and improve informal settlements without taking away their independence and community-driven growth?

What can be done to protect the residents of the self-help cities from displacement and homelessness?

# data[].attributes.body
Authorities often seem to take displacement as solution to solve life condition issues in informal housing, not considering the networks that have formed. As mentioned in the text: “the challenge is to work with peoples aspirations and to abandon policies”. How realistic are bottom-up initiatives, as an alternative to displacement, to working with the existing?

# data[].attributes.body
As Andrew Hake states in the third part of his book, the shift of attention toward the informal sector happened only after the analyisis of economic opportunities of three generic aspects, the modern urban sector, the modern agricultural sector aswell as the traditional rural sector. The aknowledging of the informal sector then became inevitable. The failure of imposed structures to provide for the urban citizens bringing up inhabitant-led changes within the urban fabric show the discreptancy between the idea of a “modern developing city” and the lived reality, and how far to often the context is ignored and ideas imposed onto cities that already have their own structures. Hake also referres to it as the transitional sector, and already in this wording there is evidence how it is far more capable of fullfilling and adapting to the needs of changing realities within a city, then the imposed generic aspects.

# data[].attributes.body
The text explores the rapid urbanization of Nairobi and the innovative ways in which its residents have adapted to the challenges of city life. The author delves "self-help" communities, that have emerged as a response to the lack of formal housing and infrastructure. The text highlights the resilience and resourcefulness of Nairobi's inhabitants, who have built their own homes, businesses, and social systems despite limited resources and government support. The author also examines the broader implications of this self-help model for urban planning and development in Africa, offering a nuanced perspective on the intersection of poverty, creativity, and urbanization.

How does Nairobi's 'self-help' model challenge traditional notions of urban planning and development ?

Is there a balance between formal governance and grassroots innovation?

# data[].attributes.body
In African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help City the author Andrew Hake describes the development of the urban Nairobi up to the 1970’s. Hake analyzed two different key drivers which contribute to the organism of a rapid growing city. The formal or “modern“ sector describes thereby any official efforts by industry and government, while the informal or “self-help“ sector represents all efforts beside official programs, investments and statistics. The discrepancy between the needed and the quantity of the provided jobs, housing, services etc. by the modern sector, creates a vacuum that gets filled by the self-help sector. Also, if this sector provides an important economic and cultural role in Nairobi, Hake reminds not to idealize the informal or the “noble savage“, as the “Western man“ does so often. Nevertheless does he and authorities see the self-help city as an positive or necessary element of the further development, that can be supported by reducing official obstacle.

He then describes the example of the Indian Bazar in Nairobi, how it’s creation, history and steady reconstruction collides with official policies and the destruction due to hygienic concerns.

The story of informal settlements, construction, demolition, eviction seems to go through time and geographical location. How does the story of the self-help city in Nairobi therefor correspond to other east African cities, to examples like the bidonville in Paris or the favela in Rio de Janeiro?

How did the situation of self-help Nairobi changed since the 1970’s, also regarding to digitalization, globalization…?

And how does the so called “development help“ (Entwicklungshilfe) contribute to this informal or self-help sector?

# data[].attributes.body
Hake’s work highlights how informal settlements operate outside conventional planning frameworks, yet they provide essential housing and economic opportunities for a significant portion of Nairobi’s population. Rather than viewing these spaces as failures of urban development, his analysis suggests that they embody an alternative mode of city-making—one driven by necessity, adaptability, and community agency. This raises important questions about the role of urban designers and policymakers in engaging with these dynamic urban environments.

What lessons can urban designers and policymakers learn from Nairobi’s informal settlements, and how might participatory or incremental urban design approaches be integrated into formal planning processes?

# data[].attributes.body
If informal settlements demonstrate successful grassroots urban planning strategies, what lessons can formal urban planning take from them to create more inclusive and adaptable cities?

# data[].attributes.body
How can policymakers integrate participatory design into mainstream urban planning without losing efficiency?

# data[].attributes.body
Is the city within a large-scale urban context an inherently socially injustice space? Is it an issue that is “unfixable”?

Andrew Hake sheds a very positive light on the self-help cities of Nairobi, and that isn’t without any reason: Nairobi is a global urban city with such a rapidly accelerating growth of popular demand, its modern city can’t keep up with it. The self-help cities of Nairobi provide an alternative solution to the stability so many people (people who come from rural areas to the city, job seeking people) seek. It surpasses the capacities of the modern city, however, we cannot forget that it also has its own miseries.

After reading the text I asked myself, whether directly implementing the informal nature of the self-help city would genuinely be beneficial or not, within the scopes of the modern city. Because although it seems to have many positive aspects to it, it seems that the self-help city does not exactly thrive within the confines of the institutional. Are the people affected by the social injustices given no option other than to choose between the “modern” and the “informal”? In the case of Nairobi, yes it is. And once one becomes part of the self-help city, is there really a way out of it? Shouldn’t the self-help city be only a temporary solution to its people, as a way to “re-enter society” within the context of the modern city? Is it just an endless cycle of injustice, where one only has the choice of experiencing it in either one place or the other?

I ask myself, what the future modern city will look like. It is no longer realistic to believe, that a “good” city is a polished one. Perhaps, once we accept that the unpolished, the chaotic and the informal to be the modern city, will the bipolarity between “modern” and “vernacular” remedy itself?

It is a false pretense however to assume that the self-help city is the solution to all urban problems. We cannot forget, that there is also misery within the self-help city. Next to the social amenities provided by the informal structures of a self help city, it lacks the basic needs of human stability within a complex city: hygiene and structure. This is especially prevalent in the case of the Indian market, showcasing that although the market was in a sense thriving, the reasoning for its multiple attempts of demolition and rebuilding was not all that far-fetched.

How realistic is it, to implement these grassroots initiatives to work with the existing structures formed by the past governments? And how do we foster the informal nature, which can actually be socially beneficial to the city, without attempting to control it, however also avoiding total chaos?

# data[].attributes.body
I wonder to what extent overpopulated cities in the West can learn from observations of these informal "self-help" city neighborhoods. Is there anything that a city like Zürich would realistically be interested in adopting or pursuing in terms of bottom-up, self-reliant "self-help" initiatives? Or is the more or less fully regulated top-down situation preferable?

Zürich, Munich, London, etc., all have similar issues concerning housing prices, and as far as I can tell, poorer people then either live in shared housing or further outside the city (necessitating public transport or a car).

# data[].attributes.body
Within the readings, the deep chasm is exposed that exists between formal architectural practice and the self-built urbanism which forms such a large part of Nairobi. Hake's Self-Help City suggests informal settlements exist as an ever-evolving, bottom-up mode of responding to the housing crisis that besets the city to challenge the state-led notion of urbanism. Makachia's Modern Vernacular condemns the dominion of high architecture, which often airs aesthetics and symbolic value over concerns for immediate social needs. His promotion for participatory design lends itself to a push against modernist ideals which are wending wrong, giving precedence to processes instead of finished products, to local agency as well as to incremental yatotta flexibility by being the very key to sustainable urban growth.

Question:

If informal settlements respond better to the actual housing problems than top-down planning, what might be an architect's position in the context of rapidly urbanising cities?

# data[].attributes.body
In African Metropolis: Nairobi's Self-Help City, Andrew Hake emancipates informal city development from the notion of being "not yet modernized," instead framing it as a parallel urban revolution and a positive element of the "future world city". The internal economy formed within is far more complex than the pressures that have shaped it. The term "self-help city" highlights its capacity to accommodate growth and expand, a characteristic that the modern city lacks. Problems do exist and shouldn't be romanticized, but Hake argues that transforming them as if they are part of a linear development towards the modern city is misguided, as are it's solutions.

He describes how the self-help city is closely linked to the self-help job market that has emerged within it. The ability of this "informal" sector to create its own housing highlights the relation as a viable alternative to the modern city, with distinct narratives and mechanisms at play. There is growing recognition of the self-help job market’s significant role in employment rates which underscores its value as a productive form of organization.

How does Hake’s framing of the self-help city as a parallel urban revolution complicate traditional definitions of "modernization" in urban development?

# data[].attributes.body
In the text «African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help City” by Andrew Hake was written in 1977 and is addressing the topic of two urban revolutions in Kenya. While reading the lines, I found it really impressive that a self-help city is progressing better than the modern city. Perhaps this is because the residents support each other when needed, which is no longer the case everywhere in today’s society. Even though I can understand it with our current “modern” systems, I think that we should really think about how we can change this in the future - it can’t be our reality. The reasons why such self-help cities have come about in the first place lie in our “modern” world. Not enough affordable places to live have been created for the residents of Nairobi. However, this problem also exists in other places around the world. What characterizes these self-help cities are their own internal economies, living in uncontrolled settlements and although they are actually temporary, by urban standards they are considered as a type traditionally found in rural areas of Kenya.

It would be super interesting to know whether there is also a kind of “urban planning” or hierarchy in these spatial constellations of Self-Help Cities and if so, how this is organized.

# data[].attributes.body
In Nairobi’s urban landscape, informal settlements developed into what Andrew Hake describes as self-help cities. First emerging out of a lack of affordable housing amongst other inequalities, these self-help cities transformed into independent entities, disrupting preconceived images of what makes a modern city. Rather than relying on urban policy that seeks to eradicate or control what doesn’t “fit”, equitable strategies that understand the potentials of self-evolving places can restore dignity while supporting the livelihoods of populations often relegated to the background.

How do we determine what is a “problem” in an urban landscape and on whose terms is it defined? How can urban policy ensure that vulnerable populations receive more than just the bare minimum and can acquire the tools and agency to develop their own environments?

# data[].attributes.body
After reading African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help City by Andrew Hake (1977), a complex and ambivalent impression remains. On the one hand, the book vividly illustrates how informal settlements in Nairobi have developed their own organizational structures—completely independent of the city administration, which neither supports nor regulates them. These “self-help cities” emerge out of necessity but grow into functioning communities where residents find ways to sustain and organize themselves. On the other hand, Hake also describes the destructive dynamic between these settlements and the city government: Authorities perceive the growing informal neighborhoods as a threat—whether due to fears of losing control or because of economic interests. The brutal evictions, which uproot entire communities, contrast with the self-organization of the residents.

A compelling question that arises after reading the book is whether these “self-help cities” are truly unplanned or if informal bottom-up planning strategies emerge within them. Given the conflicts that arise as settlements grow—whether over limited space, resources, or internal power structures—there must be mechanisms to regulate and structure communal life. To what extent do such bottom-up planning strategies exist to ensure stability within these dynamic environments? This could be a fascinating subject for further exploration.

# data[].attributes.body
I am convinced that bottom-up urbanization could be a successful model for rural development, but I am still sceptical about the extent to which it could be implemented. It may not always lead to effective outcomes if not properly coordinated.Past attempts at self-help housing initiatives have often resulted in inadequate housing solutions due to a lack of structured support and guidance, leading to environments that do not significantly improve living conditions. There is also a concern that the movements may inadvertently reinforce existing inequalities if they do not adequately address the power dynamics within communities. Without a critical examination of who is participating and whose voices are being amplified, the process could favor certain groups over others, perpetuating social stratification.

The "from below" strategy has its good points, but it needs to be done carefully and thought about the bigger social effects to avoid possible problems.

# data[].attributes.body
How can Nairobi City Council reconcile the tension between formal urban planning and the reality of the self-help city? Given the historical failures - such as demolitions without alternatives, exclusionary colonial-era policies and post-independence struggles over governance - what mechanisms could enable a more inclusive approach to urban development? Would a hybrid model, where the government provides land and infrastructure while residents shape their own communities, be viable, or would deep-seated mistrust and systemic inequalities prevent such collaboration? Is the persistence of informal settlements ultimately evidence of the failure of top-down governance or a sign that alternative, decentralised models of urban design should be embraced as the future of urbanism?

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Hake’s text “African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help-City” speaks about a “dual city system” and highlights significant challenges and opportunities for Nairobi. A recurring theme is the mismatch in standards and the difference in how standards are perceived and implemented. With its top-down approach, the modern city sets highly developed standards influenced by Western ideals that, while trying to ensure quality and safety, fail to accommodate the needs of a significant portion of the population. This results in insufficient affordable housing and other essential services. Conversely, the self-help city operates on standards that aren't formally documented but are communicated verbally and reinforced through community support, especially during crises.

Why are certain housing constructions not receiving official permits, although traditionally accepted by residents,? This points to a disconnect between what is deemed acceptable by the authorities versus the citizens. Official policies often hinder individuals from thriving in the modern city, whereas the self-help city offers a more flexible environment, where people can live according to their needs and capabilities. This over-standardization in the modern city excludes those who cannot or choose not to meet these rigid standards. It is important to recognize that standards are not absolute; they are human-made and should be adaptable.

The example of the Indian bazaar illustrates the pitfalls of demolition for renewal. Despite repeated attempts by authorities to eliminate the unsanitary conditions by burning it down, the bazaar was repeatedly rebuilt in the same manner. True transformation occurred only when the residents' economic conditions improved, enabling them to renovate and improve their environment from within.

Could allowing for multiple standards be key to addressing these issues? A system that recognizes a range of acceptable solutions rather than imposing a single set of standards can be more inclusive and responsive to the actual needs of the people. Norms and standards evolve, reflecting changes in society. Therefore, it is essential to develop standards that are flexible and context-specific, considering the unique circumstances and lived experiences of the communities they are meant to serve.

# data[].attributes.body
How essential and indispensable are the workers from the uncontrolled settlements for the economic growth and general (urban) development of Nairobi?

And what opportunities and risks would arise if it turned out that workers who do not officially live in Nairobi but are active in the formal labour market are essential for the city's well-being and the government therefore decides to legalise the uncontrolled settlements?

What kind of neighbourhood would develop and would the living conditions in the affected areas improve and would state structures be able to emerge?

# data[].attributes.body
The tension between formal, planned cities and informal settlements, particularly in Nairobi, with a focus on how informal urban areas have evolved is discussed. There are some issues of vulnerability faced by informal settlements due to their lack of legal protection, while having a clear adaptability, resilience, and economic contribution through informal businesses.

Nairobi's self-help city, which reframes informal urban development not as an unfinished or incomplete version of a modern city, but in the contrary as a parallel urban revolution. Hake sees informal settlements as a viable alternative to the modern city, with their own complex internal economies and job markets. He critiques the conventional approach of transforming informal areas into formal ones, suggesting that such solutions may be misguided. The self-help city's capacity to grow and its value in providing employment highlights its significance beyond being a mere transitional phase toward modernization.

The traditional view of informal settlements is problematic, as their resilience, economic contributions, and potential for growth should be put in the foreground. The idea of "modernization" seems to be a one-way trajectory and there is a need for alternative approaches to urban development that recognize the value of informal systems.

I wonder how urban planning can incorporate the strengths of informal settlements while addressing the challenges they face, and what role the formal city should play in this integration?

# data[].attributes.body
Is there a third possibility for Kenya’s urbanisation development besides “from below” and “from above”?

In his book African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help City, Andrew Hake describes Kenya’s urbanisation style as one primarily based on ‘self-help’ – exemplified by the ‘self-help city’, the ‘self-help housing’, and the ‘self-help jobs’. ‘Self-help’ is independent and rapidly growing, representing a ‘from below’ form of urbanisation, in contrast to the ‘from above’ urbanisation which is formed by governmental authorities.

The ‘from below’ and ‘from above’ models form two vertical poles that coexist yet are rife with irreconcilable tensions. The built environment of urbanisation emerges from the constant counterbalance between these two forces, leading to a development that has strayed from meeting the basic needs of the majority, instead producing merely a tangible image of modern urbanisation – but one that lacks the consideration of who the urban people are supposed to be.

# data[].attributes.body
The text discusses the co-existing of two different development schemes in Nairobi. Next to the formal, top-down, modern city development, there is also the informal, bottom-up development. It is discussed, that the government struggles to control and embody these fast developments. The authorities cannot keep up with the growth of these informal cities and cannot provide sufficient urban structures.

These uncontrolled urban settlements create their own internal economy which stands in contrast to the official, controlled one. This, and the fact that the houses and the land are not owned by the inhabitants and not recognized by any institution, but built with the consent of the land owner, means that the inhabitants are neither squatters nor shanty dwellers. They seem to be between the lines of law.

The main official strategy to tackle the issue of informal settlements seemed to be the removal of such structures, which meant the displacement of people, homelessness and loss of building estates.

„Within the self-help city, a considerable number of jobs are created, and those in authority are now reconsidering some of the obstacles put in the way of such enterprise, and are adopting a policy of fostering the job-creating potential of this sector of the economy.“

The development from below is recognized in economical terms but not in terms of urbanization. This remnant from colonial structures still exists in Nairobis governance.

I’m wondering why land owners allow for settlement on their land without the consent of the government. Is there a way to implement the „uncontrolled“ urbanization into official planning where ownership is recognized and inhabitants are no longer invisible to the authorities? Would this then call for responsibilities from both sides, where the government now has to provide urban structures and the inhabitant in return are no longer act in the shadow and contribute in economical means?
Or is the modern city in need or more informality to keep up with the growth of the population which already acts outside of the boundaries of formality because of slow processes and slow adaptation?

# data[].attributes.body
The text refers to the way the informal sector produces its own housing making the self-help city reliant on initiative of its citizens rendering the role of the architect in this context virtually obsolete. Could the presence of an architect be in any way beneficial to these initiatives and could these initiatives be thought on a larger scale connecting the individual to the larger community?

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Hake examines urban development in Nairobi and observes that, alongside the "modern city," the self-help city has also developed. This self-help city is a response to the failure of the government to address the topic of urban growth. It consists of informal settlements that hold significant potential. These informal settlements operate under their own systems, creating not only housing but also jobs. There is a codependency - while the "modern city" attracts people with its services, due to the lack of affordable housing, many are simultaneously forced into these informal settlements. As this a matter of fact, rather than being viewed only as a problem, self-help cities should be recognized as part of the urban development.

The text shows that self-help cities in this example are only partially tolerated by authorities and are mainly viewed as a problem. What urban policies could lead to an integration of  this grassroot initiatives more strongly into formal planning processes?

# data[].attributes.body
While reading and excerpt of text from „African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help City“ by Andrew Hake I found the part about bottom up development, or from „down below“,  interesting. What we can learn from the successes of the „self-help city“ while still looking at it critically and not romanticise it.

The text brings light to a interesting case study regarding the Indian bazaar in Nairobi, how it emerged, what went wrong in the way authorities handled it and how they found a compromise between the first informal development and authorities. As written in the text „It was a policy of renovation on the existing site, made possible by rising incomes and standards, which succeeded in transforming the bazaar in the long run.“

The text highlights in a great way what measures top-down development implemented in hopes of changing the bazaar and how and why they failed. For me the question emerges how we as architects can help mediate between actors involved in urban development like the government, tenants, investors, renters, etc., especially to speed up the process of finding a sustainable solution?

Taking into consideration the actors, looking for a solution together would have shortened the timeline of trial and error and would have helped to implement interventions that could’ve improved the live on the bazaar in a sustainable and more direct way.

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Hake explores how Nairobi’s low-income residents built informal settlements through self-help housing, adapting to government failures in urban planning. By examining the resilience of self-built communities and highlighting their economic and social importance he sheds light onto socio-political problematics which are found in developing metropolis all over the world. However, systemic issues like land tenure insecurity,corruption, lack of infrastructure, and state neglect hindered their long term success. The clash if interests lies in the tension between bottom-up urban development and top-down state control. While self-help housing provided instant solutions, the government often viewed it as not contributing to society and economy rather than supporting it. This raises questions about urban governance, informality, and the right to the city in postcolonial Africa.

This case study raises an important question for me :

How did the self-help cities in Nairobi challenge traditional practices of urban planning and governance, and what does its partial success or failure reveal about the relationship between informal communities and the state in postcolonial African cities, but also other cities experiencing “urban inequality”?

This events showcase that bereaucracy is missing functionality and lacks relevance, not being able to cope with the present needs of citizens. At such times private sectors take over, being able to handle urban questions faster than the public one.

# data[].attributes.body
The self-help city in Nairobi was born as an alternative—yet complementary—urban metabolism in response to a very complex situation where the evolution of the city’s growth was led, on one side by the capital-centered development of the “modern city” and, on the other hand, by the self-definition process of a country in an early stage of postcolonialism.

Although the text is dated in the 1970s, most of the questions the author brings up feel present and are not yet answered in our nowadays cities, at least from my south-west-European perspective. If the self-help city takes the social failures of the modern city and searches for fissures in the system to actively find solutions that work on a personal scale:

Are then the dynamics of the self-help city only possible when acting in the B side of the system?

How do the current bureaucratic processes of bottom-up initiatives affect the execution of such spontaneous and ‘need-based’ alternatives that would otherwise be applied in a more dynamic and effective manner when acting behind the legal framework of urban adaptation and development?

# data[].attributes.body
In Nairobi's urban landscape, informal settlements have evolved into what the readings call self-help cities. Born from a lack of affordable housing and compounded by policy neglect, these self-help cities have grown into self-reliant communities that challenge traditional ideas of a modern city. Instead of relying on urban policies that seek only to control or eliminate these areas, strategies that recognize the potential of these self-evolving spaces can restore dignity and support the livelihoods of marginalized people.

How can urban policy empower vulnerable communities to develop their own environments rather than simply imposing top-down solutions?

# data[].attributes.body
The idea that people can take part in planning their city and make it better is really interesting. When people are involved in shaping their city, they start to feel more connected to it and more responsible for it. This can make them more likely to look after the city and come up with ideas that will work in the longterm. In his book Urbanisation from Below, Andrew Hake talks about how the city of Nairobi has grown through people organising themselves. This shows that cities can develop without the government controlling everything.But I'm not sure if this is actually possible in practice. Not everyone can get involved, and some people might take advantage of these structures to make money. Also, focusing on individual needs might mean that bigger problems, like infrastructure and waste management, are ignored.

But the idea of city development without government control is interesting. Is it really possible to do this? Or do we need some kind of coordination to make sure the city works well?

# data[].attributes.body
The contrast between Nairobi’s self-help city and its modern urban sector raises profound questions about the very nature of urban development. On one hand, informal settlements are seen as the result of failed planning; on the other, they embody a resilient, self-organized response to economic and social exclusion. Institutional development models often overlook the realities of urban populations, creating a segmented city, one where some are included in the formal economy while others build their own spaces on the fringes. This prompts a crucial question: is urban development truly successful if it excludes a significant portion of the population? Rather than being anomalies, could informal cities actually be creative, adaptive responses to the failures of the state and the limitations of conventional urban planning?

# data[].attributes.body
Could the self-help city, with its informal structures and independent economy, offer a sustainable model for urban development that challenges the very principles of capitalist-driven city planning, while reducing the vulnerability of it's dwellers?

Andrew Hake’s "African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help City" explores the contrast between two urban phenomena: the Modern City, shaped by government action, market forces, and industrial development, and the Self-Help City, which emerges in response to rapid population growth, land scarcity, and inadequate government housing policies. The Modern City expands through formal planning and investor-driven development, while the Self-Help City grows informally, often at a faster pace, and becomes less reliant on the formal sector. Despite challenges like insecurity, lack of services, and vulnerability, these informal settlements generate jobs, create infrastructure, and form the backbone of the urban economy in many developing countries. Hake introduces the concept of "Urbanization from Below," recognizing that informal, self-organized urban growth should be seen as a positive force in city development. He argues that the culture and mechanisms of self-help settlements, rooted in local traditions and community support, succeed in meeting residents' needs in ways formal institutions often fail. The main urban issue is finding ways to address the challenges faced by these informal settlements while recognizing their critical role in the city’s overall development.

# data[].attributes.body
Through a precise and careful analysis of Nairobi's rich history, the text highlights how urban development stems from complex mechanisms influenced by a vast number of factors, which challenges a simplified, western vision of urbanism. It’s a sublimation of urbanism to quickly antagonize informal settlements, neglect their networks and causes, and only envisioning their destruction and resettlement as a viable intervention. Trying to analyse a specific, local form of urbanism through employments, financial capabilities, personal stories, inefficiency or lack of governmental institutions or hierarchies to either administrative (colonial) powers or to wealthy, profit-oriented stakeholders helps us understand these processes better and tackle problems better. In the case of Nairobi, the “Self-Help-City” is a result of unaffordable and missing housing in the modern, “conventional” urban setting. Coupled with the histories of settlements such as Langata or the Bazaar, recognizing the importance and economic production of self-help-cities / informal settlements helps us broaden our urbanistic understanding. Informal aspects such as bottom-up approaches are more viable contexts given the difficult and volatile economic, social and racial circumstances. They are a clear result of specific processes in the context of Nairobi – Applying measures from other settings will not properly tackle its problems.

# data[].attributes.body
It fascinates me how urbanization seems to take on a life of its own, shaped by necessity, resourcefulness, and the absence of structured planning. If authorities fail to provide solutions for a growing population, the people create solution out of sheer survival instinct. This resilience is a testament to the human spirit, but it also exposes the deep flaws in urban planning that prioritizes profit or short-term development over the well-being of citizens.

The destruction of informal settlements may serve immediate economic or aesthetic interests, but it leaves lasting wounds on society. These scars take generations to heal, deepening social inequalities and eroding trust in institutions. A truly sustainable urbanization strategy must recognize that cities are not just collections of buildings and infrastructure but ecosystems of human lives, relationships, and aspirations.

While short-term financial gains might justify rapid urban renewal in the eyes of investors or authorities, the long-term consequences of neglecting the needs of the people are far more costly. Displacement, social unrest, and the breakdown of community structures can set a city or even an entire nation back for decades. True urban progress comes from policies that center around inclusion, dignity, and long-term prosperity for all. A city that fails to serve its people will eventually fail itself.

Urbanization must be driven by a vision that sees beyond immediate economic benefits and focuses on the well-being of its citizens. Then again how would a bottom up approach work out where the enormous problems within these informal settlements are tackled while still ensuring the economic stability of a nation?

# data[].attributes.body
This study of the self-help city with its own logics shows the limits of the top-down planning approach and “modern” city. It also demonstrates how urban planning projects in Nairobi following the “modern” model fail to recognize and incorporate the wishes and need of the people living in self-help cities.

The development of the “modern” city introduced a new form of the city to Nairobi, where new really means Western, including not only Western forms of urbanization and urban form, but also the Western capitalist market logic and ways of thinking. Several of the negative results of this urban revolution are mentioned in the text. They include gentrification and resulting exclusion of the poorer and urban segregation, marginalization and weaking of social solidarity. This highlights the issues with the still prevailing dominance of Western theory and models and its export.

The opposite of this Euromodernity, the self-help city, offers alternative strategies to cater to the needs of economically disadvantaged people. The residents create their own ecosystem to sustain themselves.

This raises the question: What can be learned from the model of the self-help city and could it be combined with or incorporated in top-down approaches and official policies?

# data[].attributes.body
The readings emphasize that informal settlements in Nairobi, often seen as problems, are actually thriving urban environments built on necessity and resilience. The idea of the “self-help city” arises when a lack of affordable housing forces communities to develop their own infrastructure, economy, and social networks outside formal planning. Similarly, Eastleigh’s shift from an Asian-dominated area to a diverse urban space shows how cities can continually reinvent themselves beyond state control.

Rather than labeling these informal developments as failures, the texts argue that they offer alternative urban models that challenge traditional planning. They raise a key question: should cities be shaped by strict top-down regulations, or should they allow for the natural, adaptive growth of self-organized communities?

# data[].attributes.body
«Kenya is not undergoing one urban revolution but two. The first - the development of the modern city - has been traced. We now turn to look in greater detail at the self-help city.»

When reading these first couple sentences, I got triggered by the specific words used immediately. Mainly the words «modern» and «help». These unforunately often seem to make a common appearance, especially in post-colonial contexts. There is always this need for modernity and western thinking, progress and capitalism that was presumably implemented by the colonizers. But everything about colonization is forceful and it is still clearly embodied in the city later on. It is found in the architecture and infrastructure, the politics, the society, … The failure of that implemented system then needs support, which is gained through bottom-up planning and done somewhat successfully, only to then be demolished forcefully again, and without any alternatives. This is again this need to be modern, which can get to extremes like considering the informal as "an embarrassement to the municipal authorities, p. 96". It is striving to live up to economic or aesthetic interests, which again fails to acknowledge the people behind it, their lives and their effort.

There should be a more sustainable option (socially, culturally, economically, financially) to deal with urban growth. And like it was mentioned in the text, we should raise fundamental questions about the meaning of the word «developing».

# data[].attributes.body
I have heard about these problems in other countries before, but it becomes clear here that this is a global issue affecting not just a few countries but far more than one might think. People in need focus first on the most essential things—like food and simply having a roof over their heads. Housing conditions only become a priority later. It is a vicious cycle. There is no single right or wrong solution. Instead, a combination of measures must be taken. However, the current approaches often create new problems. Forced evictions without resettlement leave people completely homeless. Authorities may think they are solving the issue, but in reality, they are just shifting the problem elsewhere. In other cases, efforts to renovate and improve living conditions result in rising rents, making housing unaffordable for the very people it was meant to help. Sometimes, the problem is simply ignored altogether. Governments do try to take action. However, there remains a significant gap between state planning and the reality of urban growth. This discrepancy leads to tensions and deepens existing inequalities. How can we create housing policies that truly benefit those in need without unintentionally making their situation worse?

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Hake's text discusses the phenomenon of the "self-helped city" and "self-helped society" in Nairobi. By 1971, approximately one-third of the city's urban fabric consisted of unauthorized housing, built by the residents themselves. This form of construction represents a bottom-up approach to urban development.

In these areas, many people work in unregistered jobs, which officially classify them as unemployed, even though they play a crucial role in the local economy and trade. These self-organized societies grow rapidly and should not be seen as merely parallel to the modern city but rather as a direct product of it. They emerge in response to urban pressures such as population growth and economic opportunities, filling gaps that the formal city fails to address.

Their strength lies in their organic and adaptive nature, yet they remain beyond the reach of regulation and formal planning. This challenges conventional urban planning theories, raising the question of why planning struggles to accommodate or address these forms of urban development.

# data[].attributes.body
In chapters 6 and 11 of his book, Andrew Hake, from the point of view of a churchman in Kenya in 1977, pleads for recognizing the value of the informal city. He characterizes the self-help city as follows:

Despite originating as a by-product of the modern city (the availability of jobs and shortage of housing), thus being urban in nature, the self-help city becomes more autonomous in time, generating not only housing, but also its own economy. In 1977 this led to the point that it influenced Nairobi´s growth, in all aspects from economy to life, more strongly than the formally planned modern city. Because it is the result of pressures “from below”, basic needs of the population, in contrast to economical and institutional forces shaping the modern city, the self-help city is more resilient. As Hake writes in chapter 11, it is a model of an “alternative society” (p. 172) that through its very own system of planning, is translated by citizens into urban form. Despite missing an official planning permission, as the cited study of 1971 showed, inhabitants were not primarly concerned with their housing standards, much rather with being close to the city and having an income (see p. 99). (At the time) a great amount of buildings was built with the land owner´s permission using traditional rural tecniques.

Hake sees  the self-help city as significant contribution to the city of the present. Acknowledging the positive aspect of “uncontrolled settlements” being built through people´s own initiative and values, he stresses the notion of urban development “from below”: authorities building upon forces existing in “uncontrolled settlements”.

> What are the means for city building departments to “work with” such complex social, economical and physical organisms ? Are departments for urban planning, as shaped by western models, appropriate to interact with the self-help city ?

> Today´s conditions of self-help cities are often vulnerable in terms of the poor physical state of structures and / or the deeply embedded social structures of power, and often crime. Is it realistic for exterior figures or institutions to “work with” these constructs ?

# data[].attributes.body
In Nairobi, there are mainly two ways how cities grow: one is the official way, controlled by the government, and the other is through self-built settlements created by people who have no other choice. The formal city has rules, but these rules often exclude the people who need housing the most. The informal city, on the other hand, develops based on need. It is not planned, but it somehow works.

The idea that informal settlements are just a problem that needs to be fixed is a narrative that must be looked at critically. People build their own homes, start businesses, and create communities, the places are full of “life”. There are still things that might need improvement, such as poor infrastructure and a lack of legal protection, but they also provide opportunities that the formal city does not.

What I found interesting is how informal areas are sometimes allowed to exist and other times completely removed. The Indian Bazaar in Nairobi is a good example. It became an important marketplace even though it wasn’t officially approved. Only after it was torn down and rebuilt did the city recognize its value. Markets, neighborhoods and entire communities have been demolished or ignored because they were not part of an official city plan or did not meet government standards.

Should cities only be designed by officials and experts, or should they leave space for informal growth? Instead of seeing these areas as problems, governments could provide basic services and infrastructure while letting people keep their independence.

The same thing happens in many other cities. In Brazil, in India, and in parts of Europe. Instead of treating informal areas as failures, they should be seen as a different way of shaping cities.

# data[].attributes.body
In African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help City, Andrew Hake illustrates how self-help cities have emerged in response to inadequate housing and infrastructure. These settlements grow informally and spontaneously, shaped by the bottom-up initiative of the people rather than a rigid urban plan. Nevertheless, governments often view them as a problem to be erased rather than recognizing their role in the city.

However, I believe that self-help settlements can provide more flexible solutions compared to traditional urban models. I wonder how cities can integrate the bottom-up principles of the self-help city without compromising the spontaneity and adaptability that make these settlements so resilient?

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Hake introduces the second urban revolution to have swept through Nairobi, the Self-help city, as a repercussion of the failure of the modern city and institutional society to meet the needs of the population, giving rise to the emergence of a series of informal infrastructures and housing in the urban landscape. Uncontrolled settlements with their own subsistence economy, independent of government, give rise to resistance and intolerance on the part of the authorities, leading to their destruction, as in the slum-clearance phenomenon. Government policies that do not accept informal infrastructures only postpone and ignore the problem of inclusive, affordable housing. The author defends Nairobi's social dynamics and local organizations as a response to urban challenges and developments.

How have the emergence of informal housing dynamics influenced the urban fabric of the metropolis since 1970, and thus Nairobi's urban identity?

How could grassroots initiatives cohabit with formal urban planning?

# data[].attributes.body
Nairobi's growth pattern calls into question a particular phenomenon seen and reviewed in the history of modern urbanism: the sudden crowding of cities, and the consequent difficulty of cities to adapt to that change. The city evolves and develops at a far slower pace than the intentions of millions of individuals. Nairobi materializes this paradigm: while it rises through skyscrapers and avant-garde neighborhoods, it is also the scene of uncontrolled and at times illegal development that is completely different from the former case.

However, the spontaneous city is not solely a response to demographic pressure; it can also be read as a direct consequence of failure. And it is precisely in this failure that the spontaneous city demonstrates such resilience as to give it a certain autonomy. However, this dichotomy of city conformation entails a situation of mutual clash between the parts: the controlled city, in its position, cannot afford to allow given parts of it the opportunity for autonomous growth. On the other hand, total control of these parts would be impossible, since it struggles to control itself. Still, it is powerless in the face of the achievements of the spontaneous city: an urban conformation that sees the active participation of citizens in its conformation; a conformation that consequently, enjoys the ability to create community, civic sense.

Hence the paradox: should the spontaneous city increase these last two qualities, it would then itself be able to constitute itself as a controlled city. Thus, the question arises: how long can a spontaneous city remain so?

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

# data[].attributes.body
The concept of self-help cities challenges the conventional notion that urban development must be strictly regulated and planned. These informal settlements emerge as a direct response to unmet housing and economic needs, developing their own urban logic and infrastructure. While they provide essential shelter and employment opportunities, they also exist in a precarious state, often facing the threat of eviction or demolition due to a lack of legal recognition. Instead of viewing these areas as temporary or problematic, perhaps urban planning should focus on integrating their organic growth patterns into broader city development strategies. How can urban policies be adapted to support and legalize self-help cities without erasing their community-driven structures and economic networks?

# data[].attributes.body
Starting from a fact, cities are developed according to principles given by politicians and industry. Other forms of urbanisation have always been there, but we never acknowledge them in the process of developing cities. People prefer to demolish and rebuild instead of looking critically at these parallel urbanisations. They push people into the streets. What would be interesting to understand is how these forms of urbanisation can inform us about our own failures in designing urban development? What can we learn from these parallel lifestyles? Bearing in mind that the living conditions in these places seem difficult, but could they be improved without necessarily destroying everything?

# data[].attributes.body
The question that was most present for me while reading the text is how governments, who are overwhelmed with the urban dynamics within a city can still contribute to the development of informal towns in a research efficient ways? Has there been a paradigm shift from controlling to enabling and supporting, e.g through accelerating positive trends?

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Hake states in these chapters to view the informal settlements not as a problem, that needs to be fought against or (even worse) healed. While the living standards in these areas might be essentially lower then in the rest of the city, the informal settlements are also a way of urban self-help to react to the problems, that arise often through actions and pressures of the modern, institutional city planning. The informal settlements are so to speak not the problem itself, but a strategy to comp with the pressures and problems arising from external factors. By removing or 'cleaning' these informal settlements, the problems are not gone, but the coping strategy for these individuals is destroyed.

How could the living standards in these areas be improved? How can urban strategies not destroy but enhance the qualities of the informal settlements, while improving the situation for the inhabitants? Is there a possibility, that these development can arise from the informal settlement itself, as another way of self-help?

# data[].attributes.body
The Text of Andrew Hake shows clearly the dependencies between both the self-help city and the modern city and intends to recognize the value of the informal city, that it has created on its own. The independence that the informal city has gained over time proves that far from being the problem that the modern city perceives them to be, these settlements are part of the solution to the problems that the modern city itself causes.

Therefore i question how far the government, that was creating and controlling the modern city, can nowadays really have an positive impact in the development of both the informal and the modern city, in a fruitful way which is supportive, respectful and valuable to what is already existing there.

# data[].attributes.body
The displacement of informal settlements and the government's approach to tearing down these infrastructures often overlook the rich social fabric and community structures that exist within these areas. "Uncontrolled urban settlement is the product of the difference between the popular demand (for housing of a certain cost and location) and that which is demanded and supplied by institutional society". This highlights how informal settlements arise from unmet housing needs, yet their existence is frequently disregarded by authorities. The government's actions often prioritize urban development and modernization over the needs of the residents living in these informal settlements. For instance, many residents face displacement without adequate resettlement plans, which leads to significant social disruption. The attitude of the authorities towards the settlements is influenced by some of the other factors mentioned above thus indicating a lack of consideration for the established communities and their dynamics.

But the informal sector not only provides housing, it also creates economic opportunities and social networks. The dismantling of these structures can lead to the loss of livelihoods and community ties, magnifying the challenges faced by already vulnerable populations. The informal sector is a "transitional urban sector," which reflects the ongoing shift from rural to urban living, yet it is often treated as a nuisance rather than a vital part of the urban ecosystem.

A more inclusive urban policy that recognizes and integrates these informal sectors could lead to more sustainable urban development, benefiting both the residents and the city as a whole.

# data[].attributes.body
In this book, Andrew Hake examines the process of urbanization in Nairobi, in particular the evolution of the informal settlements and community initiatives that have shaped the city. The book focuses on the 1960s and 1970s, a period of rapid growth for Nairobi, when formal urban infrastructure struggled to keep pace with demographic expansion.

Hake highlights the idea of “self-help”, which refers to the efforts of Nairobi's inhabitants to build their own housing and develop basic infrastructure without direct government assistance. These initiatives made up for the shortcomings of the state and contributed to the rapid urbanization of the city's outlying areas. Hake also analyzes the social impact of this self-help model. Although these efforts gave many people access to basic housing and services, social and economic inequalities remained unresolved. Informal settlements have remained on the margins of formal society, often stigmatized and neglected by the authorities, despite the essential contributions they have made to the urbanization of the city.

To what extent could informal urbanization coexist or interact positively with more formal forms of planned urbanism, combining the flexibility and creativity of self-help with the advantages of urban planning?

# data[].attributes.body
Does the bureaucracy of the city hinder the dynamic processes of its inhabitants, or does it simply fail to align with the broader societal demands?

Nairobi's rapid urban expansion is not only driven by the state or formal economic structures, but is also largely shaped by the needs and resilience of its inhabitants. Low-income population groups in particular contribute to urban development in two ways: On the one hand, they support the existing urban structures from below through their work and self-organization; on the other hand, they create their own livelihoods through informal, bottom-up strategies, as the formal economy and state planning often offer them no prospects.

As state institutions are primarily interested in top-down projects and have long ignored or even fought against informal settlements, Nairobi's urban identity is largely formed through the independent actions of the city's inhabitants. Social networks and mutual help play a central role in the informal communities. These networks enable access to housing, work and basic services and thus compensate for many failures of state institutions.

Instead of viewing informal structures as an obstacle to orderly urban development, Hake advocates actively incorporating the self-organization and local agency of residents into urban planning. Only by recognizing and integrating these decentralized urban dynamics can sustainable and socially just urban development succeed.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading the text „African Metropolis“ by Andrew Hake my first instinct was to check when the British colonial rule ended in Kenya, as it was completely ambiguous in the text. The attitude towards these self-made towns seems to not have changed much after the power overturn in 1963 which seems interesting to me. The state, no matter if under British or own rule seems to try to deflect the issues arrising all over the city, but specifically manifesting in these self-made parts of the city. The book doesn't really clarify the explanations which these governments gave (or actually might have had), except when it came to the building of the railway and the following establishment of the Indian Bazaar. What where the reasons for the other cleanings of the self made parts of the city?

I can imagine (due to similar situations all around the world, even today) that the explanations where „sanitary concerns“ and the need to „cleans the city“, but the actual reasons must be of economic nature. This also makes me speculate if the clearings after the British rule has ended still where neo-colonial in their nature. What did they need this cleared land for? What was the purpose for such abrupt, forced relocations of systems that seemed to mostly needed a bit of lawmaking (as in renter protection) and infrastructure (ex. Sanitary infrastructure)? And furthermore, how is the situation today?

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, this text harbours great potential for my work as a future architect. In planning questions or tasks, one often deals with a ‘context’. This context often has spatial, environmental and climatic characteristics. However, the text goes further and refers to the social structures of a ‘context’. As the example of the bazaar at the end shows, the inclusion of existing social structures and dynamics is essential for the existence or functioning of a project.

The change of perspective of the text was also exciting: When analysing the social dynamics, in Nairobi, it was less about focusing on the problems and more about finding the potential in existing structures and working with them. The dynamics discussed in the text offer an ‘alternative’ to modern Nairobi. The housing shortage has given rise to various forms of living, which are referred to as ‘informal’ settlements or the ‘self-help city’.

The author believes that these dynamics, which develop out of a society's need, deserve greater recognition, but this does not mean that planning in the conventional sense should be neglected. And this is where the aforementioned change of perspective comes into play: To regard the ‘self-help city’ as bad per se and to demolish it does not solve the problem, it is simply postponed. It would be exciting to see how the existing dynamics can be incorporated into the development of the city while supporting it with ‘planning’ and policies. - A mixture of top down and bottom up.

I think the biggest challenge in this process will be to gather information, because as Andrew Hake notes, the ‘self-help city’ is not based on the written word, but is an oral culture with face-to-face communication. It is much more about looking closely, verbal exchange with the local population and recognising existing potentials that can be strengthened and supported, towards alternative theories of urban development.

This alternative form of analysis is something that can be applied not only to Kenya, specifically Nairobi, but also to other cities: where and what are informal dynamics, why have they emerged and what can we do to support them?

Principles such as ‘modern housing standards’, demolition of existing buildings for densification, will probably have to be reconsidered in order to improve the housing and thus living situation in the cities with the inclusion of social structures.

# data[].attributes.body
The 'self-help' city and the case of Nairobi is a rich example of a solution tending to more horizontal decision making. By mixing top-down and down-up measures, consensus might be reached.

However, can the potential that lies in those methods of dialogue between the governed and government be perennial over long periods of time without getting institutionalized and then fall into a new top-down system where the institution is again disconnected from governed people ?

# data[].attributes.body
In light of the historical evolution of informal urban development in Nairobi, how do you think contemporary urban planning policies could better integrate the self-help city model? What are the potential benefits and challenges of adopting a more adaptive planning approach that balances state control with grassroots-driven urbanisation?

# data[].attributes.body
I found the definition of the self- help city intriguing, as it is somewhat already speaking of the questionable governmental policies or their lack in the context of the urbanization of Nairobi. In particular, the first official policy of total demolition of uncontrolled settlements with no plan for resettlement struck me, as such policies are also present in my home country and show the government's absolute negligence of the needs of the people and the arising situation. On the other hand, I believe that what the text is suggesting as a probable solution to the housing crisis in the face of a "development from below" seems like a sensitive approach.

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Hake talks about how Nairobi’s rapid growth led to a bunch of informal settlements popping up. The official housing market just couldn’t keep up, so people took matters into their own hands and built what he calls "Self-Help Cities." Without any government support, they created homes, set up infrastructure, and built their own communities. These grassroots efforts played a huge role in shaping Nairobi and really highlight the resilience and creativity of its people.

By 1970, when Hake published his book, Nairobi was heavily defined by these informal settlements because the city’s housing market just wasn’t keeping pace with its booming population. One striking example is the Mathare Valley, one of the oldest and biggest slums in the city. There, people built simple tin-roofed shacks with whatever materials they could find and even managed to set up their own water and electricity connections—no help from the government. These Self-Help Cities showed how people found ways to survive and create a life for themselves, even when the authorities pretty much ignored them.

How different would Nairobi look today if the government had stepped in to support these communities earlier?

And more importantly, what can we learn from these Self-Help Cities about resilience, community-driven solutions, and tackling housing crises in other growing cities around the world?

# data[].attributes.body
What social and economic factors drive the growth of self-help cities and what impact does this have on the unequal distribution of resources and opportunities?

How can local communities and governments work together to improve living conditions in informal settlements while avoiding forced evictions?

What is the relationship between urbanisation from below and modern urban development and how can these two processes be reconciled to create inclusive and equitable cities?

# data[].attributes.body
In Andrew Hake's text entitled African Metropolis, the revolutionary urban process of the city of Nairobi is taken in analysis. This revolutionary process can be divided in to two levels: the development of the modern city (the part of the city most influenced by Western society) and the "self-help" cities (the "other" urban revolution).

It is interesting to read how an internal economy is created within the self-help cities, but remains subordinate to the modern economic system of the city of Nairobi. Within this system of self-help cities, new job opportunities are created because there are those who are in charge of building the houses, selling the goods, and so on. The author refers to such economic opportunities as the informal sector, which is associated with a transitional phase.

Hake also describes the case study of the Indian bazaar. I found it very absurd to read how the modern city has imposed social control and absolute abuse of power to such an extent that the only solution is to raze the bazaar to the ground in order to head off the plague. This solution has only moved the problem elsewhere without proposing a viable solution.

# data[].attributes.body
The state plays a key role in urban development, often displacing people from self-help cities to construct buildings that modernize formal cities. These displaced people are forced to move to other self-help settlements, where many end up in informal work, creating a cycle of exclusion from the formal economy.

Paradoxically, even those with regular wages can barely afford housing in these newly developed areas and often seek jobs in self-help cities. As noted in the text, it is often non-locals who can afford the new housing. At the same time, the modern urban sector does not grow as fast as expected, making economic survival even harder.

From my understanding, urban development is not just about constructing modern buildings and should not rely solely on top-down planning. It must keep pace with population needs and economic realities. It should also take into account the economy of self-help settlements and find ways to integrate it into the formal economy.

Can planning and architecture help bridge this gap, or must social and economic issues be addressed first?

# data[].attributes.body
The self-help city and the modern city depended heavily on each other during their development, and still do. Recently, the self-help city has become more recognised and tolerated by the authorities. At the same time, the city is becoming more independent and self-sufficient. What does the government have to offer for such a development? How could the government strengthen the dynamic self-help city?

In a wider context, I am interested in the transfer of this dynamic to other places. What can other cities facing a housing crisis learn from this symbiosis? Could bottom-up self-help initiatives play a bigger role in solving the problem of affordable housing? (e.g. Degelo Erlenmatt Ost)

# data[].attributes.body
As Andrew Hake writes in his text Nairobis urban fabric consist of two parts. One is the modern part of the city part and the other is the self-help city. Those parts differentiate themselves in their history, in the way they are build, planned, lived and in character. Even if mutual dependencies between those have existed the self-help city is gaining more and more independence of the modern city even though there have been major governmental interventions that have destroyed big parts of the self-help city. I ask myself how there can be a more mutual power distribution between those two parts or how the self-help city can be influential on the governmental level for preventing decisions that affect it directly.

# data[].attributes.body
Unauthorized settlements emerged from the gap between housing demand and institutional supply, creating a parallel economy that generated jobs and sustained livelihoods – less vulnerable to fluctuations. Cheap rental housing and informal businesses drove urban survival, while ownership remained precarious. Authorities often ignored or demolished these settlements, exacerbating housing insecurity. Despite challenges, these communities persist, demonstrating economic self-sufficiency and an alternative model of urban growth that modern city planning struggled to accommodate.

While official policies had historically favored Western-style, state-led growth, informal settlements expanded as a response to economic exclusion. This bottom-up urbanization challenged colonial-era systems, promoting an alternative city. Authorities increasingly recognized the informal sector’s resilience but continued to impose limits, revealing the ongoing struggle between imposed modernity and the organic evolution of Nairobi’s urban landscape.

Can the rise of informal settlements in Nairobi be viewed as both a direct consequence of colonial exploitation and a (radical) reimagining of urban life outside colonial structures?

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Hake examines Nairobi's urban development through two models: the modern city and the self-help city. These informal settlements play a crucial role in the city's economy, providing housing, jobs and community-managed infrastructure, however the state does not support them.

Learning about urbanization from below would be a great help, as these neighborhoods are not simply disorganized, but are developing self-sufficient structures rooted in local traditions and community cooperation. However, the authorities often regard them as threats, leading to evictions and tensions between the two models in Nairobi. Despite their difficulties, self-help towns are resilient and adaptable, making them very interesting to study and reuse for future urban development models.

Could informal urban growth be recognized as a legitimate and sustainable model of urban development? How can we integrate urbanization from below into our projects?

# data[].attributes.body
Modern vernacular architecture plays a key role in creating urban spaces that truly reflect the needs of local communities. Unlike the product focused approaches often seen in Western design, this style encourages people in the community to actively take part in the design process, ensuring that their social, cultural, and environmental needs are considered. Peter Makachia points out that architecture often divides into elite, high end buildings and everyday, functional ones, raising questions about who actually controls the design narrative. Cities worldwide are also still dealing with the lasting effects of colonialism, which creates an identity crisis as they try to preserve their history while embracing global trends. Makachia suggests that while traditional building methods should be respected, they shouldn’t just be copied. Instead, we should find a balance between maintaining local techniques and introducing modern ideas. In times of crisis, such as natural disasters or in refugee camps, involving communities in the design process can offer quick, cost effective solutions to meet urgent needs. However, there are challenges when it comes to involving the community: it takes time, resources, and ongoing collaboration, which can delay construction. Power imbalances in communities may also result in some voices dominating, leaving the needs of vulnerable groups unaddressed. This raised some questions for me: How can this approach remain efficient while ensuring everyone is included? How can architects balance their expertise with local knowledge without imposing their own ideas? And how can modern architecture respect history while creating new, authentic identities?

# data[].attributes.body
Hake’s observations of Nairobi’s Bazaar mirror the history of Kowloon Walled City, where unregulated, high-density urbanism led to cycles of disease, poor sanitation, and structural hazards. In both cases, government inaction allowed informal settlements to grow unchecked, creating environments where public health crises thrived. Ultimately, it was not self-regulation or gradual adaptation that resolved these issues, but rather state intervention through legislation and rising economic conditions that provided the capital needed for large-scale infrastructure improvements. Without these forces, the cycle of disease and environmental degradation persisted indefinitely.

Are there alternative ways, beyond government intervention and economic development, to sustainably improve informal settlements and prevent recurring public health crises?

# data[].attributes.body
Many ingredients of the self-help city originate from the modern city, however, the self-help city is less dependent on market fluctuations and is more able to grow and assimilate those who are left behind by the modern process, such as the homeless and the unemployed. In the constellation of the self-help city, several types of households have grown, without official permission to exist. Nevertheless, 45% of their population is legally employed in the city of Nairobi. Houses have been destroyed, without aiming for relocation (slum clearance). Authorities failed to provide a solution to the housing problem and the reality of the self-help city, which, on the other hand, contributes to the life of Nairobi. The question that arises is: why have institutions failed to acknowledge such a large part of the population? Is the approach of neglecting the self-help city reality and needs sustainable? Can we speak about modernity, if only one part of the city is brought forward? What could be the ideal bottom-up approach to avoid destruction and displacement but also renovation and unaffordable living costs?

# data[].attributes.body
How can development "from below" be supported by the government, as mentioned in the text? (P.172) Are there any existing concrete examples where this has (successfully) happened? What are the needed tools to implement this approach, with the result of creating better living conditions?

# data[].attributes.body
The decision to burn down the Indian Bazaar was fundamentally problematic, as it was a short-term reaction to the immediate health threat of the plague, but did not address the deeper, underlying issues such as poor living conditions, sanitation, and inadequate urban planning. The authorities chose to burn it down as a drastic measure to control the spread of disease. However, this action did not solve the root problems like overcrowding and inadequate infrastructure. Instead, it merely shifted the problems elsewhere, leading to further displacement and suffering. While the subsequent rebuilding did bring some improvements, the act of burning the Bazaar highlights how reactive urban planning can cause more harm than good. The need for long-term, sustainable solutions to the city’s growing social and infrastructural challenges was ignored.

Why was burning down the Bazaar seen as an effective solution, despite its evident failure to address the root problems? Could there have been alternative, more sustainable measures to deal with the issues of the Bazaar, which would have prevented the need for such a drastic action?

# data[].attributes.body
In his book „African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help City“, Andrew Hake analyses Nairobi as a city of two entities: the modern city and the self-help city, the later (in 1971) housing approximately a third of Nairobis population. Out of necessity and as a result of failed formal municipal planning, the informal city over time began to generate its own internal economy and a growing independence, providing essential housing and economic opportunities for a large part of the population.

Based on several examples, the text analyzes the authorities attitude towards these „uncontrolled“ / „informal“ / temporary settlements throughout the city, which are often facing total demolition, resettlement/ relocation and clearances.

Despite facing insecurity, lack of services and social disadvantages, the self-help cities are described as inclusive and responsive to its inhabitants needs and are characterised by adaptability and flexibility.

Could the concept of self-help cities, being built from communal initiative and values, inform an alternative and more participatory city planning?

As Andrew Hakes book was published in 1977, what changes to the self-help city have occured or might emerge in the coming years?

# data[].attributes.body
I’m wondering how urban development “from below” is connected to top‑down planning, as the text remains somewhat unclear on that point. Could it be that, due to the rising independence of the self‑help city, it might build its own government—one that manages its affairs more effectively than that of the modern city—and eventually replace the old system?

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Hake exposes Nairobi as a city that had two simultaneous revolutions. On one hand, the modern city, is seen as the result of industrial growth. However, what has strongly promised a future of opportunities, has failed to provide housing to job and luck seekers. On the other hand, the self-made city, born from rising expectations and a rapid increasing population. The book discusses how communities in informal settlements, are an example of resilience showcasing their often-overlooked role in urban planning through their active participation in self-help initiatives aimed at enhancing their living conditions.

The pattern repeats itself continuously.  The city attracts people with promises of new job opportunities, fueling hopes for a better future. However, looking for work can be one of the hardest works, and during this transitional phase, individuals often find themselves accepting very precarious living situations—typically at the edges of the city - while they search for stable employment.  Without access to formal jobs, the likelihood of exiting this transitional phase diminishes significantly, creating a loop. The fundamental need for employment often hinges on the ability to pay rent. Research has shown that when the state or other organizations take responsibility for covering individuals' rent for a few months—along with providing capacitation and proper integration processes—these beneficiaries typically succeed in improving their living conditions and securing dignified work, leading to a more stable economic state. Following to a being capable of accessing more dignified and adequate housing.

I found it incredible that the government decided a total demolition without having a plan for resettling the people. Highlighting that the self-help city is seen as a very negative, uncontrolled, problematic space. Hake, very carefully and beautifully invites to see the self-help city not as a failure (of an imposed external model) but rather as an opportunity and valuable element in the future development of the city. Then these urban environments are also a multicultural fabric of social identities and community bonds. The resilience of the self help city relies on the adaptability of its residents to change. He also warns against romanticizing it, because it is also a space that presents corruption, exploitation and inhumanities… Nor suggests that salvation will be delivered to the urban poor.

My question would be how can the state find a balance between the rapidly expanding city and a dignified housing policy for a growing population? With Hake’s arguments, if the self-help city relies on the modern city and can no longer be seen as a parasite,but  in a more symbiotic relationship, how could this new city model be defined, and what are its limitations?

And to conclude, the book criticizes the housing policies and debates the in- and formal city in the 70’s, how has it changed until the present? Are there still the same problems or how was it possible to overcome the crisis and missing housing policies?

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Hake presents the urban development in Nairobi, where alongside the "modern city," the "self-help city" has emerged as a response to government failure in managing urban growth. This self-help city consists of informal settlements that, while often viewed as a problem, hold significant potential. These settlements operate under their own logic, creating not only housing but also jobs, fostering a co-dependent relationship with the "modern city." While the latter attracts people with its services, the lack of affordable housing forces many into informal areas; the author believes the self-help city should be considered an integral part of urban growth rather than merely a challenge to be solved.

This raises questions about our own urban policies and the integration of community-driven initiatives into formal planning. Can overpopulated cities in the North learn from the self-reliant, bottom-up nature of these neighborhoods? Could large European cities, with their highly regulated systems, adopt aspects of self-help initiatives, or is their current regulated approach preferable? The balance between formal and informal planning could offer valuable insights for urban development in our context too.

In Switzerland, a relatively high amount of agency is available for citizens to interact with planning (tools to oppose and propose); while being counter-powers to top-down and market-driven planning, those are not informal: what would informality look like in Switzerland? Where could space be made for it to grow?

# data[].attributes.body
Reading Andrew Hake's text has made me reflect on how informal settlements, like Nairobi’s Self-Help City, can surpass formal urban areas in terms of growth and self-organization. The Self-Help City demonstrates that urban space can be created not through top-down planning but rather through the dynamic self-help efforts of people on the ground. This raises the question of how much freedom I, as an urban planner, should allow for the self-organization of residents. It seems crucial to leave space for people to find their own solutions, rather than imposing control or plans from above.

I am also familiar with the concept of the "Arrival City," which highlights how such informal settlements are not just places of poverty or failure but hubs of social and economic activity. In these "arrival cities," many of the essential qualities of urban life are learned and practiced before individuals fully integrate into the formal city. While this offers a more nuanced view, I wonder how easy it is to idealize these spaces or even fetishize them.

The text also reinforces the idea that the production of urban space cannot rely solely on traditional, top-down planning. I believe the real challenge lies in how we, as planners, can engage with the local communities. The self-help nature of Nairobi’s informal settlements shows that local solutions and creativity should be prioritized, as the residents have developed effective systems of mutual aid, work, and social structure that often surpass the efforts of formal city institutions. Hake points out that despite their informal status, these settlements have created jobs, housing, and even forms of social security that the modern city has failed to provide.

# data[].attributes.body
Hake Andrew shows the relationship between formal and informal urban areas in Nairobi. Of particular interest is the resilience and autonomy of the informal settlements and the critical awarness and examination by politics and planners. The changes since the 1970s open up important points for discussion. I wonder what approaches to informal urban planning can be adopted in order to plan more efficient and resilient cities. Which approach should we apply top-down or rather bottom-up?

# data[].attributes.body
The text examines the development and reality of the Kenyan "self-help city", the informal counterpart to the urban, westernized, capitalist-driven "modern city". Opportunity draws people to the metropolis, but poverty and lack of social services push people to the city's limits. Illegal settlements and unofficial jobs emerge, forming an independent urban entity. The "self-help city" offers an alternative social, cultural and economic model, yet the majority of its inhabitants live in extreme poverty and marginal conditions. The top-down government opposed this growing bottom-up development. In response, the authorities have taken measures to suppress the development of illegal settlements, to the point of completely demolishing the villages without compensation, displacing entire communities. The author strongly denounces the severe and failed attempt to eradicate the settlements, noting that they would reemerge elsewhere. Renovating and improving existing structures and living conditions is called for.

How can community-led development based on people's needs be combined with state support focused on welfare rather than profit?

# data[].attributes.body
The text highlights the power of community-driven urban development in Nairobi. It is an analysis of self-help housing challenges conventional planning by showing how informal settlements are not just temporary solutions but adaptive and sustainable urban forms. Makachia's concept of modern vernacular architecture demonstrates that blending traditional techniques with modern materials creates cost-effective and environmentally sustainable housing. His discussion of participatory design further emphasizes the importance of involving residents in shaping their living environments, leading to more functional and culturally appropriate housing solutions.

While it presents informal urbanization as a viable alternative to top-down planning, it raises a critical question: How can governments integrate these bottom-up approaches into formal planning without disrupting the organic, community-driven nature of informal settlements? If state intervention is too rigid, it risks erasing the adaptability and self-sufficiency that make these communities resilient. However, without any formal support, issues like inadequate infrastructure and land tenure insecurity may persist. Finding a balance between community autonomy and state involvement remains a key challenge for sustainable urban development.

# data[].attributes.body
Every human being needs a roof over their head, food and a job. The city attracts in its ability to create many jobs.

A city is like a collection of several ecosystems, often arranged by activity and social class. A city's desire is to expand not only nationally but also globally, with a more or less significant economic influence.

However, a city is made up of people with traditions. The destruction of illegal housing is the destruction of a tradition. This housing comes with the creation of an economy that does not contribute to the city but to the inhabitants.

This transformation must be carried out to provide better sanitary conditions, but it must not be at the expense of the residents. They find themselves without a home, without work, in conditions that put them at greater risk of disease.

We need to find a way of developing the city with its residents and its traditions. Just because someone doesn't have any economic weight in the town doesn't mean they're insignificant.

Both points of view make sense. The city needs to develop in order to offer better living conditions in terms of hospitals, schools, etc., but the residents also need to have a roof over their heads. Development always goes hand in hand with destruction in this case. To avoid destruction, we need to change the way we look at cities.

# data[].attributes.body
“The self-help citizens have been translating their values into genuinely urban forms.”

An important aspect to planning that the “from above” approach to planning fails to take into account, especially in rapidly evolving cities in “developing” countries, is the values and history of the city it is trying to build.

In the informal settlements, even if far from ideal, people have a real agency to make their space, integrating into the urban fabric, and making it fit them. Yet, I feel like this process is often labeled as "uncontrolled" or "unauthorised" only because formal structures have positioned themselves as the sole arbiters of legitimacy. Settlers became squatters only when the land became property.

I am wondering if a “in between” scale of planning could exist, where the ressources “from above” could be shared with the “from below” planners?

# data[].attributes.body
„Miss A.W. is a Kikuyu, aged over 65, who became a prostitute as a young girl, and entrusted her savings ([,6oo, she says) to her mother. When her mother died, Miss A.W.'s brothers took the money and gave her nothing. They will not allow her to retum home to their land. Her own children are grown up, but all are landless, unemployed and scattered in different towns. In May 1970, as a result of a fall, she became crippled, and has to crawl,

being unable to walk. She cannot get to a latrine; neighbours clean her up. She has only a tom blanket for covering. She has

no income, but gets a little food from friends and from St. John's Community Centre. Her house in Kitui village has been demolished and she lives in the open.“

An example of the miserable realities of life and how slum clearance is problematic.

But then I ask myself: in this huge problem that has been building up for decades, what is the role of the architect?

# data[].attributes.body
In Chapter 11, “Urban Below” from African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help City, Andrew Hake explores the informal sector as the fourth key area of economic opportunity and challenges the use of the term “developing” to describe certain countries. He highlights how new economic systems emerge within Nairobi’s informal structures, shaping urban life beyond formal government planning.

A critical example is the Indian Bazaar, which began as a self-organized economic hub but was soon subjected to regulation and racial control under colonial administration. While it provided opportunities for traders—Indian merchants—authorities sought to enforce spatial and economic segregation. In an attempt to reshape the area, officials even burned down the bazaar, believing it would improve conditions. Such measures primarily served as acts of control rather than genuine urban reform.

# data[].attributes.body
In the text from 1977 Andrew Hake examines the growth and transformation of Nairobi, focusing on the role of self-help initiatives in the city's urban development. The term "self-help city" refers to the informal settlements and community-driven efforts that have significantly contributed to Nairobi's expansion and housing solutions. Hake provides a historical account of early settlements and urbanization, highlighting how residents, often in the absence of sufficient governmental support, have organized to build housing and infrastructure. This self-reliance has been pivotal in shaping Nairobi's urban landscape, as communities have developed their own solutions to address housing shortages and improve living conditions.

Since the text is from 1977 I would be interested in how Nairobi developed. What are the long-term consequences of informal settlements in cities like Nairobi? Positive and negative? And how does gender and class impact participation in self-help housing and infrastructure projects?

# data[].attributes.body
Romi Bassler, rbassler@student.ethz.ch

Overall, I was extremely surprised by the positive portrayal of this self-help city. I understand that people can be very proud of this work, as it requires a great deal of effort and creativity. However, this situation only arose due to the ignorance or inability of the state. It would be much more important to analyze whether the residents are truly satisfied. That’s why the statement "We need not idealize the culture of the self-help city" must be strongly emphasized.

I believe that most residents would prefer optimization over demolition (assumption), and a great deal of progress would already be made by legalizing and recognizing these places—most importantly, by not exploiting them afterward. Cooperation between both sides is essential.

In my opinion, the claim that such a self-help city is economically independent from the unstable conditions of the modern city should be viewed critically. The text itself mentions the financial struggles of the residents (such as work-seeking and insurance issues) as an ongoing condition—things could hardly get worse for them.

I think a state could generally benefit from a self-help city because it would significantly ease its burden. However, it must provide the necessary tools for this, for example, in the form of regulation. At first glance, this might sound paradoxical, but what I mean is, for instance, enabling access to knowledge or organizing a type of pre-zoning to create a certain level of stability. This would help support the self-help city where possible (since the state is obviously overwhelmed with too many responsibilities) and allow for a symbiotic relationship—similar to what was seen in Indian bazaars.

The beginning of the text, which discusses the unknown figures, highlights how difficult it is to form a realistic picture of these complex places. This makes it even more delicate to intervene and develop ideas that genuinely help—without, for example, leading to gentrification or forced relocation. Instead, a solution must be found that all parties agree on and that is also economically viable.

# data[].attributes.body
The text is about the development of the Self-Help City in Nairobi as it evolved into a modern city. This is made up of various informal settlements of different sizes around Nairobi. They were primarily created because the residents could no longer afford the accommodation in the modern city. Over time, they have more or less developed their own (infrastructure) systems, creating an informal organisation that functions. For example, they generate many jobs that are unknown to the official authorities. These developments lead to an independent urban entity.

A major conflict that emerges in the text is that the authorities deal with these illegal settlements very arbitrarily. Often they are not in their favour, which in many cases has led to the villages being demolished without offering the inhabitants a shelter replacement. In the examples given, the cases show that the precarious situation makes it difficult for many residents to find a new settlement if they lose their home. Nevertheless, they remain in Nairobi. "The city offers them a much higher income and greater hope than they could look for in the rural areas."

On page 94 the text says the self-help city is dependent on the modern sector. How can this be understood? Does the text mean that the self-help city can be seen as a by-product of the modern city?

# data[].attributes.body
The text by Andrew Hake from 1977 considers the importance of so-called self-help settlements for future urban development in Nairobi. Those less regulated, more spontaneous developing parts of the city show a great potential for creating new jobs and trades; however, the city authorities continue to interfere with the development of these settlements.

A lack of regulation doesn’t only mean a faster building process but also a security problem concerning for example fire, hygiene, protection from crime and a lack of infrastructure. These settlements mostly expand since there are no better options for the people to live. However, the people have a greater agency in the shaping of the settlement than in the more regulated city parts where one cannot just build an accommodation for themselves. This more self-determined way fosters integration and a quick development of trades and businesses. Therefore my first questions are:

What is the benefit of the self-sufficiency of self-help settlements? Is public agency a form of welfare?

It could be a more self-determined form of living, but in these cases, it is restricted by poor living conditions and lack of resources.

My next questions concern the Survey of Temporary Structures:

For how long can an accommodation be called temporary? Many people lived in the same dwelling for over 8 years with no plans to leave the city. Is uncertainty of the future the main limiting factor of these settlements?

As the survey showed, people move to the city because they cannot live on the produce of their own rural land. They don’t prioritize to improve their dwelling since they might be saving up to buy land outside of the city. Also, authorities clearing the settlements and relocating people is a constant threat as shown in some examples. If such an event took place, the investment in the dwelling would be lost. Nowadays the threat of natural disasters due to global warming poses an additional threat, making the future of these settlements even more uncertain.

The diverse dynamics of the self-help settlements offer great potential for future development. However, grievances caused by a scarcity of resources but also by the control of the authorities must not be overlooked, but must be improved step by step. It would be really interesting to hear about the more recent development of Nairobi in the lecture.

# data[].attributes.body
In Hake’s book African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help City, the dilemma of urbanization in many developing countries is discussed critically.While it is undeniable that the spontaneous evolution of self-help cities which is based on the satisfaction of people's most basic needs for survival and social connection has to a large extent alleviated the current plight of the residents, the future of this kind of informal settlements remains doubtful in the absence of definite social controls and regulations for their development.

Just as the example of Indian Bazaar in Nairobi, began as an independent economic center, and despite several transformations, its sanitary conditions, property ownership, tenant equality, and many other problems persisted. It eventually leading to the government takeover.

The question for that is: is there a balance between formal governance (from top) and initiative actions (from bottom)?

Another is: Does the positive impact of self-help cities on both gender inequality and class divisions have implications for the future development of urbanization?

# data[].attributes.body
Before exploring Nairobi in more detail, I hadn't realized the extent of its cultural diversity. The city is home to over 40 ethnic groups, as well as various religious communities, all contributing to its dynamic social landscape. This variety is fascinating, but it also raises questions about how these different groups interact, especially when cultural or religious differences come into play. Despite potential tensions, one unifying factor seems to be the pursuit of employment—a challenge and necessity that cuts across ethnic and social lines.

One particularly intriguing aspect is the notion of the work-seeking man—individuals who migrate to Nairobi in search of opportunities but often find themselves in precarious, informal jobs or struggling to secure stable employment. While this group might not be as large as commonly assumed, it is still visible enough to shape public perceptions of labor and urban migration.

Given the shift in urban planning from top-down control to bottom-up, community-driven transformation, I wonder: Is there a place for work-seeking individuals within this new urban development model? Could they actively participate in reshaping the city rather than just trying to survive in it?

# data[].attributes.body
the self help city

the self help city to me is a dynamic urban reality

consistent only through its inconsistency

through its ability to adapt it offers a home to a lot of people

what are tools to understand the processes that form this self help city?

how can we capture these?

what can we learn from this processes?

can they offer a new way of looking at architecture?

self help jobs

the self help city is connected to the economic possibilities

self help city allows self help jobs

what is the responsibility of architecture when it comes to economy?

how can architecture and city planning influence the availability of work?

# data[].attributes.body
In "African Metropolis: Nairobi’s Self-Help City," Andrew Hake examines Nairobi’s urban development, shaped by formal top-down planning and informal self-help growth. The formal sector struggles to meet housing and employment needs, prompting the informal sector to fill the gaps. Hake highlights Nairobi’s Indian Bazaar as an example of resilient, bottom-up urbanism despite governmental interventions.

While informal settlements foster economic opportunities and social networks, it must also be warned, in my opinion, to idealizing them, noting challenges like legal insecurity and poor infrastructure. Rather than eradicating informality, is there a way to advocate integrating it into urban planning by reducing bureaucratic obstacles and supporting grassroots initiatives.

This raises a critical question: Should city planners integrate informal settlements into formal structures, or should formal cities adapt by embracing informality within designated frameworks? As cities worldwide face similar challenges, finding the balance between regulation and organic urbanism remains key.

# data[].attributes.body
The readings challenge the assumption that modern cities develop in a linear, planned manner. Instead, they reveal that informal settlements—driven by necessity—play a crucial role in urban growth. Nairobi’s self-help city is not just a byproduct of poverty but a functional, evolving system where people create housing, jobs, and infrastructure independently. Similarly, Eastleigh’s transformation highlights how urban spaces shift over time due to economic and social pressures, rather than top-down planning alone.

These cases raise important questions about the role of informal settlements in shaping the city. While often viewed as obstacles to development, they also offer lessons in adaptability and resourcefulness. Yet, they remain vulnerable to policy interventions like forced evictions, which often ignore their contributions to urban life.

Should urban policy seek to control and formalize these settlements, or is there a way to support their organic development while improving living conditions? How can planning frameworks acknowledge the value of informality without imposing restrictive regulations that erase its core strengths?

# data[].attributes.body
This text provides an insight on how the city of Nairobi, Kenya has has managed to self-repair the holes created by the regulated growth of the urban area. Urban planning cannot adjust itself to the temp of growth of the city - the city is growing faster then the speed of which the new urban areas can be planned. The planned urban areas also have a certain capacity for job options. Not only the urban planning cannot answer the demand for housing, but also for work.

In this context the city has found a way to "self-repair"'. The informal settlements are the result of the incapability of the urban planning to keep up with the growth of Nairobi.

This type of the settlements cannot be regulated as they are not planned. This leads to their demolition even though they are an answer to the created problem. This raises the questions of if these settlements should be integrated as part of the city development and how they can be regulated instead of demolished.