Flash back to 1885, houses owned by missionaries differed from those of Kenyan natives. The trickling Arabs, Swahili, and Europeans held the stone-building concept, while the dominant locals preferred their traditional wooden and mud structures. A clash in culture and housing plan was imminent.
This article walks you through the evolution of housing from that pre-colonial period (1885–1920), through the colonial (1920–1963), and into the post-colonial (1963 → present). Buckle up, it’s messy, sometimes unfair, often creative, and always instructive.
Protectorate laws, taxes and the push to the town (1885–1920)
In 1885, when Kenya became a British protectorate, the law served the interests of colonial powers. That advantage would, for decades, pry Africans off fertile lands and herd them into native reserves. Communal land disappeared into Crown control under the Crown Lands Ordinance of 1902, which formalised title deeds.
With Africans illiterate, none could interrogate and oppose laws. The hut and poll tax of 1901, demanding tax paid only in cash, was a major game-changer for the colonisers. Natives moved from villages to major towns like Nairobi, Kisumu, Nakuru, and Eldoret in search of work and money to pay taxes. As migration exploded, the next dilemma was how to house workers.
The assumption was that labour-driven migration was temporary and only unaccompanied men or bachelors needed houses. To regulate movement and address a potential housing crisis, the British introduced registration of natives through the Kipande system. From about 1919, men carried a metal tag with fingerprints, a description, and employment records.
Some Africans resisted the administrative methods but got derailed by technological and tactical gaps. Meanwhile, colonial law kept shrinking African access to fertile lands and reallocating them into native reserves. By 1915, much land became Crown, except for the Sultan’s holdings on the coast.
Who was supposed to house the migrants?
Legally, employers and municipalities were to provide housing under Section 31 of the Employment of Servants Ordinance (1906). In practice, things were spotty. A 1954 Report of the Committee on African Wage showed employer housing rates were wildly uneven: Mombasa 10%, Kisumu 10%, Nairobi 40%, Eldoret 45%, Nakuru 65%, Thika 95%.
Urban workers started improvising alternatives, leading to the rise of informal settlements. Majengo, nicknamed “septic fringe” because it lacked services, particularly became familiar. J.J. van Straaten, a site and service adviser, admitted that “low-income households would build anyway.”
These informal settlements offered autonomy, family space, culturally appropriate layouts, and freedom from the prying eyes of sanitary inspectors and pass-carrying clerks. Formal “solutions” often meant barracks rooms, shared toilets, and rules that crushed family life since these were homes designed for the bachelor worker.
Employers built the barrack-type “lines” - long, rectilinear, tiny blocks designed for bachelors - while municipal houses in areas like Pumwani, Kariokor, Shauri Moyo and Gorofani were early attempts at planned African estates that targeted the masses. Both ushered in modern colonial efficiency, but amenities like ablution remained communal. Municipal housing, however, showed varied results. For instance, Shauri Moyo, mainly built for bachelors and those displaced from Pangani, took a reductionist approach by omitting courtyards. As such, women lost crucial social space. It also ignored residents’ social needs.
Majengo: the self-build experiment (and the “opportunity missed”)
Majengo was, in many ways, the anti-Shauri Moyo - a hands-off stratagem by the municipalities. The administration decreed that the houses be built by people themselves. Starting in the 1919–1922 period, municipal authorities set aside plots under temporary licences. Households, often kin groups, were expected to provide their own financing, labour and layout, with the directive to build Swahili-inspired houses with baraza communal benches and courtyards. The municipality provided little or no piped water, drainage, or roadworks, so residents improvised and upgraded incrementally.
Scholars have called Majengo an “opportunity missed.” If the colonial administration had supported and formalised these self-build patterns properly (secure tenure, services, incremental upgrading), African spatial values, courtyards, family arrangements, and vibrant micro-economies could have been entrenched in the city’s urbanism. Instead, Majengo was largely left to fend for itself: improvised houses, wattle and daub, corrugated iron, even tin-patched roofs. Still, the social life there was rich, and the experiment produced what later became a core idea in post-colonial housing: dweller-empowerment.
From dweller-empowerment to site-and-service
That “dweller-empowerment,” where people built their own homes on serviced or partially-serviced plots, mutated into site-and-service schemes in the post-independence decades. Think of this as a more organised version of Majengo: the state or donors provide serviced plots complete with amenities while families build in stages. J.J. van Straaten argued that with no alternatives, low-income people will build temporary houses anyway; the state should channel those efforts into serviced sites, offer materials loans for expensive items, and avoid blanket reallocation. Turner’s writings also celebrated user autonomy, direct engagement of users in the production process of housing. This engagement grants residents the capacity to define authentic aesthetic and spatial values for their homes.
By the 1970s, site-and-service had gained momentum with public and private stakeholders involved. It was pragmatic realism: the state couldn’t afford whole houses for everyone, but it could provide enabling infrastructure.
National Housing Corporation and the post-independence state (1963 → 1990s)
When Kenya gained independence in 1963, the optimism of nation-building carried into housing policy. The National Housing Corporation (NHC), established in 1953, was tasked with expanding mass housing beyond the colonial enclaves. The aim was to create estates that would symbolise modern citizenship and national progress.
Through the 1960s and 1970s, estates like Kaloleni, Ziwani, Ngara, Jericho, Buru Buru, and others were developed, often inspired by modernist planning. Buru Buru in particular became the model middle-income estate: maisonettes and townhouses in a gridded plan, financed through mortgage schemes.
But cracks appeared quickly. The NHC’s projects were expensive and tilted toward the middle class. Low-income groups — the majority — were largely bypassed. By the late 1970s, informal settlements had already become the dominant form of housing in Nairobi. Kibera, Mathare Valley, Mukuru, and Korogocho swelled as the urban poor made their own solutions in the absence of affordable formal supply.
Site-and-service schemes and the “enabling approach” (1970s–1990s)
International donors like the World Bank and UN-Habitat shifted thinking. Instead of the state trying to build complete houses, it would “enable” people to house themselves. This meant providing land, tenure security, infrastructure, and sometimes loans for materials. Families then built incrementally.
In Dandora, a flagship site-and-service project in the 1970s, families received plots with roads, drainage, and core units. They added rooms, courtyards, and rental extensions as resources allowed. Turner’s idea of “housing is a verb” — not a product, but a process — played out on the ground.
Yet challenges persisted: corruption in allocation, gentrification of serviced plots (better-off groups buying out original allottees), and the sheer scale of urban growth outstripping available serviced plots.
Slum upgrading and new policy rhetoric (1990s–2010s)
By the 1990s, with informal settlements now housing the majority of Nairobi’s population, policy shifted again. The Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme (KENSUP), launched in 2004 with UN-Habitat support, attempted large-scale renewal. Kibera Soweto East became the pilot: families were relocated to high-rise flats, intended as a model for the future.
But blanket relocation often backfired. Moving families into flats disrupted social and economic networks, removed rental income streams from extra rooms, and imposed higher service costs. Many families sublet their new flats and returned to informal settlements. Scholars and activists criticised these projects for being top-down, technocratic, and blind to lived realities.
The parallel Kenya Informal Settlements Improvement Programme (KISIP) tried a softer approach: tenure regularisation, basic services, and upgrading in situ rather than demolition-and-rebuild. This was closer to the logic of Majengo and Dandora: work with what exists, not against it.
The Big Four Agenda and the Affordable Housing Programme (2017–2022)
Under President Uhuru Kenyatta, housing was elevated into the Big Four Agenda. The flagship Affordable Housing Programme (AHP) promised 500,000 affordable units by 2022. The model leaned on public-private partnerships (PPPs): government provided land and incentives, developers built at scale, and middle-income earners were expected to buy through mortgage or tenant-purchase schemes.
In practice, the scheme leaned heavily toward middle-income buyers, not the poorest households. Mortgage uptake in Kenya remained minuscule — fewer than 30,000 active mortgage accounts nationwide by 2020 — limiting effective demand. Many units under AHP launched at price points far beyond what low-income groups could afford. Once again, the majority were left to informal rentals in Kibera, Mathare, Mukuru, and Eastlands extensions.
President Ruto’s 2022–present housing push
President William Ruto has doubled down on housing as both an economic stimulus and a social policy. His administration has proposed a housing levy on salaried workers to finance the construction of new estates. The programme aims to create jobs while delivering affordable housing units nationwide.
Controversies echo earlier eras. Labour unions, salaried workers, and civil society groups question whether the levy is fair and whether units built will truly reach the poor. Sceptics point to Kenya’s long history of housing promises skewed toward middle-income groups. Supporters argue the scale of current construction may finally bring unit costs down through volume and industrialised building technologies.
Responsibilities of different stakeholders
Housing in Kenya has never been the job of the state alone. From the colonial period to the present, it has always been shaped by an interplay of actors: government, municipalities, the private sector and communities
The colonial municipalities acted mainly as regulators, not providers. They allocated land, enforced building codes, and commissioned a few estates like Pumwani and Shauri Moyo, but expected employers such as the Kenya Railways or plantations to house workers. After independence, the state became more active. The National Housing Corporation (NHC) was tasked with building and financing estates, while local authorities provided serviced plots. Donors such as the World Bank and UN-Habitat introduced site-and-service schemes, shifting the role of the state toward “enabler” rather than sole builder.
Private sector involvement deepened from the 1980s, particularly in middle- and high-income housing, often through mortgages. Civil society and NGOs began to press for slum upgrading, tenure security, and recognition of informal settlements. UN-Habitat, headquartered in Nairobi, provided technical assistance and pilot projects that shaped thinking on participatory upgrading.
But the most consistent actors have always been the residents themselves. Whether in Majengo, Dandora, or Kibera, people built incrementally, rented out extra rooms, organised water points, and created social infrastructure. Their sweat equity and resilience filled the gaps left by the state and private sector.
Today, under the Affordable Housing Programme, the national government frames itself as coordinator and financier. Counties are expected to provide land, private developers bring in construction capacity, and buyers or tenants are expected to contribute through mortgages, tenant purchase schemes, or rent. Yet the risks remain unevenly distributed. For salaried workers, the housing levy is compulsory. For developers, the state carries much of the risk. And for low-income urban residents, the promise of affordable housing still feels like a distant prospect.
Persistent deficit and the informal majority
Across the decades, one thread remains unbroken: the state has never met demand. Kenya faces a housing deficit estimated at 2 million units, with annual demand for 250,000 new units against a supply of fewer than 60,000. Eight out of ten urban residents rent, and the majority of these live in informal settlements.
The informal sector — landlords building rental rooms in Mathare, Mukuru, Kibera, Kayole, Githurai, and many others — continues to provide the bulk of housing. Cheap, incremental, self-built, often illegal in tenure, and underserved by infrastructure, yet essential.
Conclusion: a messy love-hate story
From communal to Crown land, Kipande system, Majengo informal settlements, NHC-backed modern estates, Mwai Kibaki’s high-rise plan, and now Ruto’s levy-driven programme — Kenya’s housing story is one of shifting philosophies, unfinished experiments, and unresolved contradictions.
At every stage, housing policy has walked a tightrope between control and autonomy, between top-down design and bottom-up improvisation, between the modernist desire for order and the messy reality of urban life. The lesson repeated but never fully learned: people will house themselves, with or without the state. The real question is whether policy works with that reality — or against it.
Construction Insights is a section of DezynBild Consult, that brings you insights on architecture, real estate & construction and matters of public projects.
This particular piece was put together by Lameck Owesi and Collins Njoga, through a period of detailed research. Edited by Herald Aloo.
DezynBild Consult provides professional services in ARCHITECTURE, MASTER PLANNING & CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGEMENT. WhatsApp Us: +254 715 429 997 | Email us: dezynbildconsult@gmail.com or info@dezynbild.com
Image Credits: National Housing Corporation
Good to know this history. It surely shapes future decisions.