Nashon Okowa, Construction Project Manager./COURTERSY Kenya has an annual urbanisation rate of about 4.3 per cent.
Urbanisation rate simply refers to the rate at which the proportion of a country's population living in urban areas is increasing.
To contextualise this, you must ask yourself, “How many Kenyans are currently living in urban centres?”
It averagely 15 million Kenyans. So, with an annual urbanisation rate of 4.3%, you are looking at about 650,000 people moving to our urban centres yearly.
In five years of the Ruto administration, from 2022-2027, that will be 3.2 million people moving to urban centres.
It is reported that we have an accumulated housing deficit of 2 million units.
I think it is worse than this; this figure has been thrown around since 2013. And a yearly housing deficit of 200k units, though I believe our yearly deficit is worse.
With this backdrop, let's try and understand what has happened since 2017, when the affordable housing agenda geared towards addressing the housing deficit began.
The second term of the Uhuru administration's housing agenda promised us 100,000 affordable houses annually, which translated to 500,000 housing units in 5 years – it failed miserably.
I don’t even want to dwell on the numbers they achieved; however, when elementary mathematics like addition becomes contentious, then you know there is a real problem.
The Ruto administration, on the other hand, promised to meet the annual housing demand by building 250, 000 housing units yearly, that is 1.25 million houses by the year 2027. Meaning, since we are in year three, we should have 750,000 units ready by the end of this year. Do we?
Now, you don't need to be a Newton to see that we are not hitting a million houses by 2027. This is not being pessimistic or cynical; it is the reality, and life begins with reality.
Yes, it will definitely be better than Uhuru’s housing achievement for two reasons: first, they have the resources through the housing levy, and second, they had a better start than Uhuru did in 2017.
Take the compliment! However, this administration won't be able to achieve the target. So, where does that leave us?
First, let's remember something, by 2027, ten years since 2017 when the affordable housing agenda began, we will be having about 6.4 million new people moving to our urban centres.
And I haven’t even factored in the population growth rate.
The two administrations combined, in my view, wouldn’t have built even one million houses during this period; I’m attempting to even put the figure at half a million.
Our accumulated and annual housing deficit will be worse by then – you can bank that.
Don't get me wrong, a government's attention to housing is good, we are an envy of most countries around the continent.
However, as I have said since 2017, a more practical and solution-oriented approach to addressing our housing problem as a country, amidst the high urbanisation and population growth rate, has to be through the industry.
We need realistic policies and interventions that can incentivise the entire industry towards addressing the affordable housing problem.
No government has built itself out of housing problems, more so a third-world country like ours with limited resources and competing priorities.
I know when we say this, most government honchos point us to Singapore.
Well, Singapore housing case is sui generis – no country has replicated the model, we won’t be the first, and by all signs, we are far off their model. We must begin to be realistic and practical.
Over the last eight years, there has been little done to spur the construction and real estate sector towards addressing the housing problem.
I put it to you that there have been hindrances instead.
The government’s indifference to the rising cost of construction that has impeded investors' returns in the sector has been refreshing.
The industry, rightfully so, has been a bystander and a spectator, watching the government struggle to implement the affordable housing programme.
Look, we don't yet have a housing crisis, but it is coming - you can see it.
It will be largely covered with forced occupation of empty lands in urban centres as people look for where to find affordable accommodation.
I am not prophesying doom, no, history is replete with examples we can reference.
The housing levy won't address our affordable housing problem; it is a drop in the ocean.
The more pragmatic approach to achieving our housing deficit and as well address the urbanisation pressures must be industry-driven, not government-driven.
Given the construction sector, the environment, incentives and interventions that can allow it to address our housing problem before it becomes a crisis. Time is running out!
The writer is a Construction Project Manager and an Author.
