RETHINKING NAIROBI CITY AND OTHER URBAN CENTERS

Nairobi City

There is no doubt that Nairobi city has many lessons to offer, both in terms of spatial management and responsive planning (or lack of it) viz-a-viz the city's complexities arising from a ballooning population, rural and slum poverty, scarce water resources, unreliable revenue-base for the county government and diminishing land within the city proper.

Kenya's development initiative - from a policy perspective - has always been based on the dichotomy between 'rural' and 'urban' areas, populations and activities (economic, political or social).

This is visible in the division of spatial and sectoral lines, with urban policy makers and implementers, in most cases, concentrating on "urban-like" initiatives and paying scant attention to the unplanned sprawl at the periphery of our cities.

Tellingly, this thinking has ignored the rural-urban interaction that makes the latter inherently dependent on the former. 

Take poverty for instance. Though Nairobi's low-income areas are ethnically composed, which is of course an element in Kenya's "socio-tribal solidarity", poverty still remains the common thread joining these neighbourhoods.

A look into the ethnic-distribution in these areas leads to another critical point. Household poverty stemming from opportunities present/absent in the "countryside" is the leading reason for rural-urban exodus. And this is manifested in the ethnic composition in our slums. 

For a fact, it is hard to find a Kalenjin in Nairobi's shanties. Could this be linked to abundance of economic opportunities in their backyard? Some clever chaps out there can help open our eyes.

This clearly demonstrates that low household poverty levels at the countryside have a direct impact on urban areas’ progress.

Without prejudice to the brains behind this policy push, it carries weight to state that gentrification will remain inescapable in our cities for a long time to come.

The genesis of this "(under)development concept" is simple: the city sheriffs visit a low-income section of the city, introduce a developer/investor to this gullible mass, displace its occupants and (then) construct flats as a "response to biting housing needs in the city." 

Such interventions are premised on the unfounded logic that only high-earning city dwellers can power the economic wheel of the city. 

As a nation, we have failed to grasp - and internalize - the basics. Low-income sections are an urban reality all over the world. It will be willful deception for city sheriffs to ignore the contributions of these pockets to the city's progress.

Some interventions demand few coins to achieve. Look at the street families "menace". Instead of having them locked up in detention centers, why not organize them in "communities/groups" led by one of their own and offer them some jobs, say cleaning streets and collecting garbage?

Of importance to Nairobi is the need to address the flow of information first within its limits; that is, with greater emphasis on low-income sections and secondly, the flow of information viz-a-viz outlying rural areas that feed the city's slum population.

Nairobi city is a victim of many years of over-concentration of economic interests in urban areas. Rural areas were relegated as breeding areas for the booming industrial-workforce needed in cities.

With the advent of devolution, it is prudent to nurture a new paradigm that puts more emphasis on developing rural outposts. 

This thinking needs to overcome the traditional separation between rural and urban planning. It must avoid generalizations and be grounded in the specifics of the regional/county contexts.

One of the most important points to bear in mind is that the potential for rural-urban linkages to contribute to poverty reduction - and in turn scale down rural-urban exodus - will only be realized if measures are taken to address wider social inequalities, such as information flow.

Another sticking point is the issue of "rural" activities taking place in urban centers (such as agriculture) and activities often classified as "urban" (such as manufacturing and services) taking place in rural areas. 

The folks in Nairobi's slums, for instance, operate on "ruralised" urban concept despite existing city regulations and by-laws banning such activities as animal rearing within the city. 

Which begs the questions: why has it taken long for "city fathers" to seek ways of creating a conducive environment for such activities knowing very well that a significant city population depends on them for survival? In whose interest is a by-law that criminalises such activities?

The view that everything “urban” should remain “urban” and anything “rural” should remain as such is in fact a borrowed concept which responds not to our present urban dynamics. It is totally discriminative.

Nairobi city, as a matter of principle, must redefine its leanings for it to realize a meaningful all-inclusive development head-start especially now that counties wield immense powers and influence in urban development.

Lemukol Ng’asike is an architect. Twitter: @mlemukol.  E-mail: lemoseh89@gmail.com