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?

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?

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,...).

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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).

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? 

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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. 

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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?

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?   

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?

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».

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.

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 ?

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.

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?

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?

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)

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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? 

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.

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 ?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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)

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?

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?

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

The text describes how a "self-help city" has developed in Nairobi, where people create their own structures without government support. It is especially interesting how social networks play a big role, allowing people to survive despite difficult conditions. At the same time, the text shows that forced evictions often create more problems instead of offering long-term solutions.

How the city will develop in the future?

Will the government continue to fight informal settlements, or will it find ways to better integrate them into the city? Could cooperation between the state, residents, and organizations lead to more sustainable solutions?

Another question is what economic opportunities these informal settlements offer. They are an important part of the city but are often not officially recognized.

In the future, new dynamics could emerge if the government supports alternative housing concepts and improves infrastructure. Nairobi could develop into a city where formal and informal structures work together more effectively to create housing for everyone.

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.

These unauthorized settlements have a long history of evictions, justified by reasons ranging from reclaiming land control to addressing public health concerns.

Through the lecture, one gains the impression that such evictions are ultimately counterproductive—especially in the absence of compensation or alternative housing for those displaced. While these two urban forms may be spatially separated, they remain deeply interconnected, particularly through economic links, such as the workforce that the self-help city provides.

Furthermore, without overlooking the often precarious living conditions of its inhabitants, the self-help city as a whole demonstrates remarkable resilience and adaptability. It absorbs the influx of people migrating from Kenya’s rural areas—an urbanization trend that the modern city has largely been unable to accommodate.

A striking example is the case of the Indian Bazaar, where multiple cycles of removal and reconstruction took place, yet without any real improvement.

"As a single example, the policy of burning and demolition achieved little or nothing except the displacement of the problem to another site. It was a policy of renovation of the existing site, made possible by rising incomes and standards, which succeeded in transforming the bazaar in the long run." (p. 176)

This raises the question: to what extent was this transformation a formal or informal process? One gains the impression that the most effective tool at the government's disposal would be investment in basic public sanitary infrastructure. Such a long-term investment could help address public health challenges without requiring direct involvement in housing, ultimately creating value both for and within local informal structures.

A key tension is evident between tolerance and repression. On one hand, informal settlements are often allowed to exist because they play a crucial role in the city's functioning. On the other hand, they are constantly under threat of demolition and displacement, as seen in the case of Nairobi's Indian Bazaar, which was only recognized for its economic importance after being destroyed and rebuilt.

What stands out about these informal cities is their adaptability and flexibility, as they respond directly to the needs of the population, often more efficiently than formally planned areas. Could this flexibility serve as a model for the future of cities? Instead of viewing informal settlements as temporary problem areas, perhaps cities should consider creating spaces where organic growth is allowed, particularly in times of rapid population expansion.

The critical question arises: should the informal city, born out of the people's needs and proving to be both resilient and adaptable, be recognized as a legitimate urban model? Perhaps a new approach is needed, where formal and informal structures coexist, creating room for self-organization and community-driven development, rather than suppressing it.

The Text “African Metropolis: Nairobi’s self-help city” , written by Andrew Hake, illustrates different existential needs like housing, infrastructure and employment in Nairobi. These needs are unfortunately not supplied for the whole population. As a result of this of precarious situation the city of Nairobi is undergoing two simultaneous types of development. The first is institutionalized in search of the modern city. Meanwhile the second one is motivated by the specific need of the population in a bottom-up model, generating gradual process of improving their living conditions.

The population of Nairobi lives in a very dynamic system, where housing unfortunately is not a permanent guarantee, but is going through changes of modernisation. This processes, influences vast numbers of people, that lose their temporary homes for project of modern standard housing, that they can’t afford to rent. Causing a housing crisis, generating urbanisation from below, where the people develop housing units by their own initiative.  In addition, the work market offers a very limited amount of job availability, the service sector is growing slowly because of missing qualified personal.

As a consequence of the precarious situation Makachia proposes a modern vernacular system of constructing housing, working in participative planning system across stakeholders. This suggestion raises the question: How does a participative planning system, which is a rather slow process with a lot opportunities of corruption, relate to the extreme housing and infrastructural needs of the population of Nairobi?

despite structural inequalities.

Dynamic hubs of economic and social activity,

despite poverty and diseases.

Community-driven innovation and face-to-face communication,

despite limited (/no) government support.

Risk of romanticizing!

Inspiration rather than as symptoms of deeper structural failure?

Overlooking the fact that residents are often forced into these conditions due to government neglect and systemic inequality?

At what point does highlighting resilience shift from acknowledging ingenuity to justifying the persistence of inequality?

What approches should we have as architects, what is our responsibility? 

Is there an in-between possible to avoid setting words on two “opposite” sides? 

• What political and economic challenges hinder the implementation of participatory urban planning in African metropolises?

• How can fair access to resources and infrastructure be ensured in the long run for residents of informal settlements?

• Why do slum clearance actually happened and why is it even allowed?

  
  

General Thesis on Uncontrolled Settlements:

Wouldn't it be more effective to retrospectively authorize self-built cities, granting them land and providing guidance on how to improve their expanding communities with simple yet effective methods? Instead of constructing standardized housing that fails to meet the specific needs of the residents!? Supporting self-help communities in forming organizations could provide them with access to funding and donations. If left without any resources, these settlements will unavoidably expand - but likely in worsening conditions. Proactively supporting their growth could lead to more sustainable urban environments.

Moreover, slum clearance should not be an option simply because these communities occupy central spaces. Instead of "relocating" them, a integration into the broader urban framework would be more beneficial. Providing simple job opportunities would allow residents to improve their homes, and not moving them away from central locations is crucial since many have limited financial means and cannot afford the costs of daily transportation (i believe)

Most importantly, I believe that every Western approach to helping people must occur through participatory urban planning and must also include the involvement of various local architectural offices. These offices can help collect, safeguard, and utilize the information gathered during the "study." I see another problem arise when Western actors believe they have done their part, provide assistance, and then return to their own countries - leaving behind unresolved issues.

--------

A completely different approach could be not to focus on reintegrating them into the society we all know with jobs, money, and housing, but instead to help them become a self-sufficient (autark) community. Instead of using money, they could develop another system, exchanging food and other goods to sustain themselves.

„Many of the ingredients of the self-help city are generated within the modern city, and in that sense one can describe the self-help city as dependent on the modern sector. With the passage of time, however, the self-help city has begun to generate its own internal economy, with a growing independence of the modern city. On the one hand, the self-help city as a whole is so much closer to a subsistence economy that it is therefore, in a sense, less vulnerable to the fluctuations of fortune which beset a modern economy; it can expand without too much difficulty to absorb the casualties of the modern development process — for example, the refugees from the Pumwani demolitions and the destruction of some settlements nearer the centre of town, or the growing number of urban unemployed and homeless.“

It describes the crucial dynamic between the self-help city and the formal urban sector. While at first the self-help city developed out of the conditions of the formal urban sector, it has now reached a degree of urban, as well as economic autonomy. Which makes the self-help city even more resilient, as it works similar to a subsistence economy. This resilience enables for the self-help city to be an entity capable of accomodating people displaced by modern urban development through demolition or eviciton, as well as people who are in unstable economic positions.

The capacity to absorb shows how flexible these informal settlements can be and on the contrary how inflexible and exclusive the formal urban design influenced by western perspectives can be.

I’m asking myself, how I would act as an urban planner/architect in such cases. Is it helpful to interfere with the planning and to suggest to shift towards a more self-organized, bottom-up initiative of urban planning or would the promotion and thus institutianalization of these practices in the end have negative effects on the communities from which they originated? And wouldn’t that be an extremely extractive approach to kind of take over the knowledge which has been produced by generations of people?

Rather than seeing informality as a failure, the texts highlight its role in city-making. However, the relationship between these self-organized spaces and government policies remains fraught. Evictions, demolitions, and urban renewal projects often disrupt the very communities that sustain Nairobi’s growth.

Can urban policies shift from controlling informality to working with it? What models exist for integrating self-built environments into broader urban planning without undermining their social and economic networks?

What I found particularly compelling is that these settlements aren’t just temporary solutions—they often respond to housing crises more effectively than formal urban policies. The question, then, is whether cities should loosen their control and allow for more organic, community-driven development. Could policies shift from restricting informal growth to actively supporting it? And if so, what would a hybrid model of governance look like?

How does recognizing the Global South as a source of innovation change the way we approach urban design?