|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In 2019, 50.1 per cent of Kenyans were under the age of 19. That equates to half of a country the size of approximately 47.5 million people. Now, in 2025, these Gen Zers are entering adulthood and in search of a place to live in urban areas such as Nairobi and Mombasa.
A drive through Westlands, Kilimani, or Eastleigh reveals a cityscape dominated by construction projects – towering high-rise flats and apartments that are encroaching on Nairobi’s streets, pushing gentrification to new heights.
However, a fundamental question demands our attention: for whom are these houses intended?
The current trajectory of urban development within Nairobi’s metropolitan areas, characterised by relentlessly escalating housing costs, is demonstrably leading to the socio-economic marginalisation of its young people and the broader working class.
The economic realities facing Nairobi’s Gen Z
Alarmingly high unemployment rates remain a persistent and crippling issue for Kenya’s Gen Z. Exacerbated by a lack of opportunities in the formal job market, most find opportunity in the informal Jua Kali. In fact, as of 2024, nearly 47 per cent of young people aged between 15 and 24 years report having to work to cover or supplement their expenses. Despite their industriousness, the Jua Kali sector is frequently characterised by low wages, job insecurity, and poor working conditions. The median income for young men aged 21 is KShs 9,000, for young women, KShs 6,000. These profoundly low wages translate into a constant monthly struggle for young Kenyans to meet their most basic needs, rendering the aspiration of owning a house a seemingly unattainable dream.
Growing inequality remains at the heart of Kenya’s youth and working-class struggles. Kenya has seen impressive Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth over the last 2 decades, but the benefits of this growth are not being shared equally. Less than 0.1 per cent of the population (8,300 people) own more wealth than the bottom 99.9 per cent (more than 44 million people). Against this backdrop of shocking levels of economic disparity, Kenyan youth find themselves facing an almost insurmountable challenge in bridging the gap and accessing the same levels of economic, political, and social advantages enjoyed by a tiny elite.
The mechanics of gentrification in Nairobi
Within Nairobi’s urban landscape, influential local coalitions comprising business leaders, politicians, developers, and influential figures frequently collaborate with the explicit aim of driving urban and economic expansion. In Kenya, these coalitions champion initiatives strategically designed to attract substantial investment and vigorously fuel lucrative real estate projects. While such efforts can revitalise cities, they frequently lead to gentrification, which is defined by increasing property values, the eviction of lower-class inhabitants, and profound modifications to the social and economic makeup of districts.
Research has found that growth coalitions have pushed the Nairobi City County government to enact zoning amendments that support densely populated residential and commercial projects. In the case of Eastleigh, high-rise developments have proliferated property values and rent. The anticipated and deeply concerning consequence of this accelerating gentrification is the inevitable displacement of long-term, low-income residents currently residing in Eastleigh, pushing them further into neighbouring – often already overcrowded and underserved – informal settlements such as Mathare and Korogocho. This displacement aggravates political, economic, and social inequalities. Kilimani and Kileleshwa are experiencing similar effects.
The Kenyan housing market is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 4.3 per cent between 2023 and 2027. This anticipated surge in property values, primarily fuelled by the continuous development of new upscale properties and sustained high demand, will predictably remain far beyond the financial reach of lower-income residents, effectively pushing them further away from the central Nairobi metropolitan areas.
Nearly 70 per cent of Nairobi’s 4.4 million residents are tenants renting single-room units. Land ownership is almost completely out of the question for most of Nairobi’s youth. Existing, deeply entrenched inequalities have created a harsh and unforgiving reality: 20 per cent of the population owns more than 65 per cent of the productive land in Kenya. A particularly concerning aspect is that existing inequalities in land distribution exacerbate the affordability crisis, meaning that the issue can be predicted to worsen.
A city divided
The economic realities and the forces of gentrification are actively reshaping the social dynamics of Nairobi. The stark lack of affordable housing for Gen Z and the working class is manifesting forms of spatial inequality and social fragmentation, leaving lasting scars on the city’s social fabric.
One of the most immediate consequences is the increasing spatial segregation. As housing costs in central and well-serviced areas like Westlands (and now even parts of Kilimani and Eastleigh) skyrocket, young people and low-income families are being pushed to the city’s periphery. This signifies reduced access to essential opportunities. These peripheral areas often lack adequate infrastructure – reliable public transportation, quality schools, healthcare facilities, and even basic amenities like clean water and sanitation can be scarce. For a young person starting their career or trying to access educational resources, the sheer distance and cost of commuting can become a barrier too high to climb over. This spatial isolation effectively traps residents in a cycle of disadvantage, limiting their social and economic prospects simply based on where they can afford to live.
Beyond the practical limitations, the inability to afford decent housing generates social fragmentation. When a significant portion of the population, particularly its youth, feels excluded from the opportunities and quality of life enjoyed by more affluent segments, it erodes social cohesion. The stark visual contrast between the luxurious new developments and the sprawling informal settlements on the city’s edges serves as a constant reminder of this widening gap. This can lead to social unrest, a feeling of marginalisation, and a breakdown of the shared sense of belonging that is essential for a thriving city. The lack of mixed-income communities is hindering vital social interaction and understanding across different socio-economic groups. The absence of diverse communities can reinforce existing prejudices and create social silos, making it harder to address the systemic inequalities that underpin the housing crisis in the first place. A truly vibrant and resilient city thrives on the interaction and exchange of ideas and experiences from all its residents, something that is increasingly threatened by the exclusionary nature of Nairobi’s current housing landscape.
Charting a more equitable course: Global best practices in affordable housing
Currently, 28 per cent of Kenya’s population lives in urban centres, and by 2050, half will be urban. This underscores the urgent need to address its housing deficit, which is estimated to be 244,000 housing units annually. Nairobi’s rapid expansion, while indicative of economic activity, exacerbates existing housing pressures, demanding innovative and proven solutions. Fortunately, cities across the globe have implemented policies and programmes that offer solutions in Nairobi’s quest to provide affordable and dignified housing for its Gen Z and working-class populations.
One compelling model emerges from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, with the Cooperativa Esperança. This initiative showcases the power of community-led, self-managed housing cooperatives. Facing an urgent need for decent housing for low-income families, the União por Moradia Popular do Rio de Janeiro (UNIÃO-RJ) facilitated the mobilisation and organisation of 70 families into the Esperança Cooperative. Despite the initial lack of formal legal recognition for housing cooperatives in Brazil and the withdrawal of international funding, the unwavering support from UNIÃO-RJ and the Bento Rubião Human Rights Foundation proved crucial in navigating bureaucratic hurdles and accessing land and eventual funding through the federal MCMV-E programme.
The Esperança Cooperative’s success was rooted in mutual aid (mutirões), where families collectively contributed their labour to build their homes, fostering a sense of ownership and community. The MCMV-E programme proved to be a game changer, offering favourable financing conditions, including subsidies and interest-free loans with repayments capped at just 10 per cent of family income over a ten-year period. The Cooperativa Esperança demonstrates the potential of empowering communities to be active participants in solving their housing needs, particularly when coupled with supportive government programmes and technical assistance. This model offers Nairobi a pathway to leverage the collective agency of its citizens in addressing the housing deficit.
In Vienna, Austria, a long-standing and remarkably successful model centred on strong public and non-profit sectors exists. The city boasts that over 50 per cent of its housing stock is social rented, catering primarily to low-income residents, with a broad eligibility encompassing 80–90 per cent of the population. This achievement is underpinned by two key pillars: municipal social housing and limited-profit housing associations (LPHAs). The LPHAs, owning a substantial 650,000 homes, operate under the national Limited-Profit Housing Act, which mandates the reinvestment of rental income profits and restricts rents to cost-based levels. This regulatory framework ensures affordability and prevents speculative practices within a significant portion of the housing market. Vienna’s approach highlights the effectiveness of a strong state role in housing provision and regulation, offering Nairobi insights into how to create a stable and affordable rental market that serves a wide spectrum of its population.
In Asia, Singapore’s approach focuses on facilitating homeownership through targeted low-income subsidies. The Additional CPF Housing Grant Scheme, introduced in 2006, provides substantial financial assistance to eligible lower-income families to purchase their first homes. While eligibility criteria include factors like age, marital status, employment stability, and household income (below US$40,000), this scheme demonstrates a direct government intervention aimed at empowering citizens to build long-term wealth through property ownership.
Finally, Copenhagen, Denmark, champions the concept of housing cooperatives and co-housing. Co-housing allows individuals to own their private homes while sharing common facilities, fostering a strong sense of community and often reducing individual costs. These communities, often managed by neighbourhood associations, can include shared gardens and other amenities that enhance social interaction and, importantly, social integration. Furthermore, Copenhagen prioritises social housing for vulnerable groups such as young students, the elderly, the disabled, single parents, refugees, and those displaced by urban renewal projects.
These diverse examples from Brazil, Austria, Singapore, and Denmark illustrate that effective solutions to the affordable housing crisis exist. While the specific contexts and policy instruments will need adaptation to Nairobi’s unique circumstances, the underlying principles of community empowerment, strong regulatory frameworks, targeted subsidies, and the promotion of diverse housing tenure offer a roadmap for charting a more equitable housing future for Nairobi’s Gen Z and working-class populations. By learning from these global best practices, Nairobi can move towards creating a city where housing is not a privilege, but a fundamental right accessible to all.
