THE IMPACTS THAT SOCIALLY ENGAGED BUILT...

THE IMPACTS THAT SOCIALLY ENGAGED BUILT FORMS HAVE ON THE POOR IN NAIROBI

Towards creating sustainable decent built environments

B02 . 36138 . 2010

GICHUHI, JUSTUS EMMANUEL

Tutor: ARCH. ADNAN MWAKULOMBA

2015

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

SCHOOL OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING SCIENCE

BAR 613: Research Thesis

i

COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING

There is a purpose of design that goes beyond brick and mortar

ii

...where the end product is not merely a building but rather a service to the community.

- ANONYMOUS -

Declaration

iii

This thesis is my original work and to the best of my knowledge has not been previously presented for the award

of a degree in any other University or Institution. This thesis is hereby submitted in part fulfilment of the

examination requirements for the award of the Bachelor of Architecture degree (B.Arch.), in the Department of

Architecture and Building Science at the University of Nairobi in the 2015/2016 academic year.

Author:

Gichuhi Justus, Emmanuel B02/36138/2010

Tutor:

Arch. Adnan A. Mwakulomba

Year Master:

Prof. T.J.C. Anyamba

Chairman:

Arch. Musau Kimeu

Date:

Date:

Date:

Date:

To all those who believe in the empathetic empowerment of the poor through socially engaged architectural advances

iv

Dedication

Acknowledgements

v

I have too many flaws to be perfect, but the abundance of blessings doesn't allow me to be ungrateful. And in this spirit, the

conglomeration of nine months of work would not have been feasible if it was not for the concerted efforts of the following, herein:

To THE LORD, who avails me all grace, so that in all things at all times, having all that I need, I abound in every good work.

To my tutor Arch. Adnan Mwakulomba, it is through my deepest and sincerest form of esteem I have always accorded you ever since

my junior years as a naive architectural student that with whom I chose to undertake this endeavour. I cannot extend enough thanks

to you Mwalimu. To the Chairman Arch. Musau Kimeu, your stickler dedicated ways in trying to instil in us all a mind-set of perfection

and the spirit of excellence in everything was immeasurable to say the least. And to all the lecturers, Department of Architecture, I

thank you all for the concentrated exertions throughout my 6 years a slave in architecture at this great institution.

To my immediate circle of friends, ‘ATELIER VI’ with whom I have been privileged to share countless cherishable memories, I hope this

comradeship will transcend the walls of ADD to leave an indelible impression.

To the Kounkuey Design Initiative (KDI) family of Tatu, Bukky, Ibra and Pascal for opening their doors whole-heartedly to me during

the confusion in my fieldwork study process, all your guidance and direction during my fieldwork visits and sit-downs is utterly

gratifying.

Last but not least, my family, my dearest, whom I am indebted to and cherish as everything. To my father, Fredrick Gichuhi, your

immense love, gentle character in your old age, yet vigour hardworking drive and vitality are the greatest source of my inspiration in

my lowest moments. To my mother, Jane Wangari, your compassionate heart, immense love and never-ending wise counsel have

served as a lamp guiding me consistently through this life. I would honestly not be where I am now without you two, I thank you truly

and deeply. To my siblings Eddy, Charles, Florence and Toto your unwavering support and love in all these years have not gone

without notice, I cannot express my gratitude in mere words. Thank you Mwangi family.

- To the class of 2016, the future lies bright for those who dare -

Table of Contents

vi

1.0 1.1

Introduction

2.0 Literature Review

Preamble

1.2 Background of study

1.3 Problem statement

1.4 Research objectives & questions

1.5 Study justification & significance

1.6 Scope & limitations

1.7 Assumptions & key terminologies

1.8 Organisation of study

2.1 Introduction

2.2 The unseen majority: An overview defining the poor in Nairobi

2.2.1 Economic context

2.2.2 Built environment context

2.3 The approach: To engaging with the poor in Nairobi

2.3.1 The concept of participation: In the built forms for the poor

2.3.2 Designing with, not for the poor

2.3.3 Role of the modern architect

2.4 Defining community architecture

2.4.1 Community architecture movement: The ‘failures’ of the past

2.4.2 The lessons learnt

2.4.3 Conventional architecture vs community architecture

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

vii

2.5 Principles of social engagement: In the built forms for the poor

2.5.1 Dynamics of user needs

2.5.2 User engagement

2.6 The effects of participation: Claims of social engagement

2.6.1 User participation leads to greater user satisfaction

2.6.2 User participation is more economical

2.6.3 User participation accrues psychological & sociological benefits

2.7 The architecture: Sustainability in the built forms for the poor

2.7.1 Sociocultural context

2.7.2 Environmental context

2.7.3 Economic context

2.5.3 Focus on design quality

2.8 Summary

3.0 Research Methodology 3.1 Research purpose & strategy

3.2 Research design

3.3 Time horizon

3.4 Sampling procedure

3.5 Population, element & frame

3.6 Research criteria

3.7 Data sources & collection

3.8 Analysis, presentation & outcome

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

37

38

40

41

42

45

47

49

35

Table of Contents

90

83

81

80

5.4 Recommendations

5.3 Responses to aims & objectives

5.2 Chapters summary

5.1 Introduction

5.0 Conclusion & Recommendations

Table of Contents

viii

4.0 4.1

Data Analysis & Presentation Introduction

4.2 Overview of Kibera slum

4.3 Overview of KDI architects

4.4 KPSPs location & summary

4.5 The aspects of social engagement

4.6 The impacts of socially engaged architecture

4.8 Summary

50

51

52

54

61

68

78

4.5.1 Dynamics of user needs 62

4.5.2 User engagement 64

4.5.3 Focus on design quality 66

4.6.1 Social issues [SOCIAL] 69

4.6.2 Compatibility [ENVIRONMENTAL] 72

4.6.3 Economic resilience [ECONOMIC] 74

A Reference List xii

Fig 2.01: Poverty and vulnerability in Nairobi pg. 09

Fig 2.02: Informal settlements area coverage (hectares) pg.

10

Fig 2.03: Summary of monthly income expenditure by the

slum dweller in Nairobi City pg. 11

Fig 2.04: Distribution of slums in Nairobi City pg. 12

Fig 2.05: The approach to engaging with the poor pg. 13

Fig 2.06: Image showing the aspect of designing with, not

for the poor pg. 15

Fig 2.07: The modern architect example pg. 16

Fig 2.08: Architect Rod Hackney pg. 17

Fig 2.09: Failures of the conventional architecture approach

pg. 18

Fig 2.10: Community architecture in practice pg. 19

Fig 2.11: Visual summary of conventional architecture vs

community architecture pg. 20

Fig 2.12: Infographic illustrating the principles of social

engagement pg. 23

Fig 2.13: The aspect of user needs in Gando primary school

pg. 24

Fig 2.14: The aspect of user engagement in Gando primary

school pg. 25

Fig 1.01: Architect Francis Diebedo Kere pg. 01

Fig 1.02: Countries representing Africa’s architectural

awakening pg. 02

Fig 1.03: Slum eradication, a flawed method pg. 03

Fig 1.04: Image showing the most common physical state

of built forms for the poor in Nairobi pg. 04

Fig 1.05: Growth of slums in Nairobi represents an increase

in the numbers of the urban poor pg. 05

Fig 1.06: Scope of the thesis pg. 06

Fig 1.07: Slum populations in urban Africa representing the

poor pg. 07

Fig 1.08: Infographic of chapter breakdown pg. 08

List of figures

ix

Chapter One

Chapter Two

Chapter Two

Fig 2.15: Sketch illustrating the aspect of design quality in

Gando primary school pg. 26

Fig 2.16: Infographic illustrating the accrued effects of

user participation in the form of claims pg. 27

Fig 2.17: Image illustrating a sense of proprietorship in

Kibera public space project 01 in Kibera pg. 29

Fig 2.18: Architectural built form by Francis Diebedo Kere

pg. 30

Fig 2.19: Pillars of sustainability infographic pg. 31

Fig 2.20: Social context of Gando primary school pg. 32

Fig 2.21: Environmental context of Gando secondary

school pg. 33

Fig 2.22: Economic context of Gando primary school pg.

34

Fig 2.23: Infographic illustrating sustainable design in the

built forms for the poor pg. 35

Fig 3.01: The case study approach in use pg. 37

Fig 3.02: Infographic illustrating the research design pg.

38

Fig 3.03: Infographic illustrating the study’s main research

questions pg. 39

Fig 3.04: Map demarcating Kibera slum pg. 41

Fig 3.05: The network of Kibera public space projects pg.

42

Fig 3.06: Visual summary of KDI projects in Kibera slum pg.

43

Fig 3.07: Visual summary of selected case study pg. 44

Fig 3.08: Infographic illustrating the aspects of social

engagement pg. 45

Fig 3.09: Photograph of KPSP 04, one of KDI’s socially

engaged projects pg. 47

Fig 3.10: On-site sit-down with the users at KPSP 01 site

pg. 48

Fig 3.11: Contextual map of KDI projects in Kibera slum

pg. 49

Chapter Three

Chapter Four

Fig 4.01: Aspects of social engagement criteria pg. 50

Fig 4.02: The twelve villages of Kibera slum pg. 51

Fig 4.03: ’The approach’ to engaging with the poor in

Nairobi pg. 52

Fig 4.04: Infographic of how productive public spaces work

pg. 53

Fig 4.05: The network of Kibera public space projects pg. 54

Fig 4.06: Visual summary of KPSP 01 - [Flexible design] pg.

55

Fig 4.07: Visual summary of KPSP 02 - [Income generating

amenities] pg. 56

Fig 4.08: Visual summary of KPSP 03 - [Environmental

infrastructure] pg. 57

Fig 4.09: Visual summary of KPSP 04 - [Engaging the youth]

pg. 58

Fig 4.10: Visual summary of KPSP 05 - [Sanitation

alternatives] pg. 59

Fig 4.11: Visual summary of KPSP 06 - [Staying committed]

pg. 60

Fig 4.12: Breakdown of the five phases of participation in

KPSP sites pg. 61

Fig 4.13: KPSP 01 site before intervention pg. 62

Fig 4.14: 3-D model showing progression of seasonal

flooding on the site pg. 62

Fig 4.15: Visual summary of community meetings held

under the NNDC group in KPSP 01 pg. 63

Fig 4.16: KPSP 01 site clean up pg. 64

Fig 4.17: Gabion construction at the river bank pg. 64

Fig 4.18: Visual summary of user participation [Design +

Construction] in KPSP 01 pg. 65

Fig 4.19: KPSP 01 site plan pg. 66

Fig 4.20: 3-D model illustrating KPSP 01 site planning pg. 67

Fig 4.21: Natural ventilation, daylighting and rainwater

collection pg. 67

Fig 4.22: Visual summary of on-site activities in KPSP 01 pg.

68

Fig 4.23: Aerial view of Kibera showing the high informal

housing densities pg. 69

Fig 4.24: Image showing the KPSP playground on-site pg.

70

Fig 4.25: Visual summary of the hands on process of

participation in the construction of KPSP 01 pg. 71

Fig 4.26: Visual summary of activities in Nairobi Dam aiding

to tame the hyacinth menace pg. 72

Fig 4.27: Space-saving, low technology barrels pg. 73

Fig 4.28: An overview of KPSP 01 site usage pg. 74

Fig 4.29: The on-site basket weaving program pg. 75

Fig 4.30: The on-site compost farm program pg. 76

Fig 4.31: Render of KPSP 01, as envisioned by the end

community members pg. 78

Fig 4.32: Infographic showing the approach to engaging

with the poor pg. 79

Fig 4.33: Image showing building form transition since its

inception to its current state pg. 79

List of figures

x

Chapter Four Chapter Five

Fig 5.10: Infographic highlighting the phases of building

and sustaining in the approach to engaging with the poor

pg. 89

Table 2.01: Teleological vs deontological interpretations

of participation pg. 14

Table 2.02: Conventional architecture vs community

architecture pg. 21

Table 2.03: Conventional architecture vs community

architecture pg. 22

Table 2.04: Table illustrating the user satisfaction

variables pg. 28

Table 2.05: Summary of chapter two literature review pg.

36

Table 3.01: Table showing the time schedule and horizon

used to carry out the fieldwork process pg. 40

Table 3.02: Main research criteria pg. 46

Table 4.01: Summary of KPSP 01 pg. 55






Table 4.07: Summary of the income generated from the

pavilion pg. 74


basket weaving program pg. 75


compost farm program pg. 76

Table 4.10: Summary of the overall profit potential of

KPSP 01 economically pg. 77

List of tables

Fig 5.01: Infographic questioning the relevance that

architects play in degraded environments pg. 80

Fig 5.02: Infographic illustrating the principles of social

engagement, established in chapter two pg. 81

Fig 5.03: Pillars of sustainability infographic pg. 82

Fig 5.04: The network of Kibera public space projects pg.

83

Fig 5.05: Visual summary of KDI projects in Kibera slum pg.

84

Fig 5.06: Infographic illustrating the immediate contexts of

the poor pg. 85

Fig 5.07: Infographic illustrating the accrued impacts of

socially engaged built forms for the poor pg. 86

Fig 5.08: Author’s sketch in attempts to develop a

methodological approach for future proactive social

engagements with the poor pg. 87

Fig 5.09: Infographic highlighting the phases of identifying

and participating in the approach to engaging with the

poor pg. 88

Chapter Five

xi

The growing issue of how architects can best appreciate and interpret the end user needs and requirements is one which continues to

generate a great deal of debate in the provision of architectural services in the case of the poor in contemporary times. Whilst current

good practice literature highlights the need for community-based participative integrated approaches that simultaneously generate

livelihoods alongside physical and social infrastructure improvements, most of the architectural interventions in Nairobi, serving to

alleviate poverty levels and improve quality of life have been administered from the conventional top-down approach, neglecting the

social concerns and existing socio-economic fabric of the poor populace. In the end, these built up products fail to establish a way of

realising sustainable decent built environments for the poor.

The author, by suggesting the concept of participation as a viable means to producing sustainable decent built environments sought

to identify any existing socially engaged built forms with the poor in the city, with the non-probabilistic sampling method narrowing

to Kibera slum socially-engaged-built-form distribution through purposive sampling. The positive impacts accrued on the wider

contexts of the poor are studied using the case study design strategy that is considered most appropriate because it is specific and

expansive enough to adapt to the various complexities that encompass the subject matter. All this with the main aim of attempting

to engage – to learn and teach – the language of social engagement in the built forms for the poor, will dictate appropriate

generalisations in the form of a set of criteria to be generated for the purpose of enhancing future proactive engagements with the

poor. Preliminary field studies indicate that the network of Kibera Public Space Projects (KPSP) stand out as built forms that have

been socially engaged with the poor towards the realisation of sustainable decent built environments. The study findings indicate

that in order to achieve sustainability in the built forms for the poor, processes of social engagement in the architectural

interventions should strive to address the social, economic and environmental immediate contexts of the poor. Thus fostering the

accretion of positive impacts in the form of social empowerment, economic resilience and environmental compatibility.

Based on the research findings, the author draws two main recommendations that that can be adopted to help propagate the notion

of participation/social engagement as a viable means to realising sustainable built forms for the poor, whilst availing a set of criteria

to serve as guidelines for the professionals in future proactive social engagements with the poor.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

1

Architect Francis Diebedo Kere (Figure 1.01) states that, “architecture should be a social process

especially in the poorer and the less developed regions of the world, integrating the people you build

for; making them feel it is their project and in this way, they identify with the building and are proud

of it”.

With the advent of the 21st century, a gradual resurgence of the rhetoric of participation/social

engagement in the built forms for the poor and destitute has been witnessed, exemplifying

architecture that works for the poor to being that of empowerment - one that fosters built

environments that respond to their specific needs while respecting their humanity and putting them

in charge of their own destinies (Serageldin, 1997). And while increased globalisation keeps pushing

the world into further modernisation, a scarcity of architects and other designers are becoming

increasingly aware of their capacity to advance justice within their individual social contexts. What is

becoming apparently evident is a trend that can be termed as a humanitarian movement among

designers who are striving constantly to address the globe’s most pressing contemporary issues

amongst the poor through localised design solutions. Strongly believing that architecture can

alleviate many of the prevalent societal ills and improve the overall quality of life for all people, the

practitioners in this field reveal a divergence from the traditional norm of practice, where an architect

only carries out duties based on a fee-for-service model from clients who can afford such services.

Instead, the architectural profession is attaining a new form of practice that seeks to engage

proactively with the end users regardless of their income bracket and address societal ills

architecturally to come up with built up forms that not only enhance the mere satisfaction of basic

needs but also help to foster self-actualization, self-expression and self-direction.

PREAMBLE 1.1.

>Fig 1.01: ARCHITECT FRANCIS DIEBEDO KERE Dubbed the master of communal projects, Kere focuses his works on utilising the potential of the local community, the usage and development of local materials and techniques and the adoption of new technologies in a simple way. Source: www.phaidonatlas.com, 2015.

PREAMBLE

BACKGROUND OF STUDY

PROBLEM STATEMENT

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES & QUESTIONS

STUDY JUSTIFICATION & SIGNIFICANCE

SCOPE & LIMITATIONS

ASSUMPTIONS & KEY TERMINOLOGIES

ORGANISATION OF THE STUDY

2

Eradicating poverty, inadequate medical healthcare, lack of proper education and other societal ills

amongst the poor and the destitute indeed requires action at a political level in terms of government

interventions, yet some architects across the globe are using their set of knowledge and skills to

interactively offer handy solutions to these localised problems. The current rise in ‘community’ driven

developments especially across Africa (Figure 1.02) for underserved persons like the Gando School in

Burkina Faso, the Makoko floating ‘community’ in Nigeria and their subsequent documentation in

worldwide forums is forcing the architectural discipline to become more aware of the importance

that this inclusive design approach has in the creation of sustainable decent built environments for

the poor. By merging local solutions with the most suitable foreign ideas, these new developments

help to break down the perception of monolithic Africa and have begun engaging with individual

specific cultures. From the onset of identifying a specific need in a given locality and setting out to

address it, the architectural design interventions implemented in the grass root level seek not to

impose alien forms but strive to foster incremental efforts, seeing the overall buildings more as

processes than as end products.

With this gradual shift from a ‘providing’ to a ‘supporting’ paradigm in the way in which architecture

for the poor is conducted, questions inevitably begin to arise regarding the role of the architect in

these contemporary times; is it enough to simply be a service provider who works solely to fulfill

commissions for clients who can afford such services? What proportion of the world’s population is

good architecture reaching today? How can architects use their training for the greater good? (Lepik,

2010). In the end, architecture solely concerned with social service should endeavor to avail design to

the needy public not as a product presented to the end user from the conventional top-down

approach, but as a worthwhile system placed in the hands of the user.

BACKGROUND OF STUDY 1.2.

>Fig 1.02: C O U N T R I E S R E P R E S E N T I N G A F R I C A ’ S ARCHITECTURAL AWAKENING These countries represent a growth in native practices; entailing more sensible and sensitive approaches to architectural design in Africa. Source: Author, 2015.

PREAMBLE

BACKGROUND OF STUDY

PROBLEM STATEMENT




SCOPE & LIMITATIONS


3

According to the United Nations, while in the process of globalisation the poor represent a great

challenge and opportunity for renewed developmental initiatives through appropriate efforts and

technologies to help alleviate unsustainable societal practices (UN-Habitat, 2003). However, the built

up environment in this age of globalisation and modernisation has been characterised by the rapid

spread of high-end architecture that is in the service of economic and political interests with little

significant regard for concerns of the poor - best illustrated by the minimal social engagement fused

in the provision of architectural services. Generally, architecture that transcends the basic

requirements to generate places and spaces of usefulness and beauty is far from reaching all the

segments of the wider poor society, the world over. While increasingly being manifested in

inadequacies in the present conventional top-down approach to solving ‘community’ building

problems at the grass root level in the context of Nairobi (Figure 1.03), some of the executed building

products have failed to establish a way of realising sustainable decent built environments for the

poor due to the little or no involvement of the end users. The urban poor in the city thus continue

viewing these advances as mere charity/beneficiary programs, increasing the ‘dependency syndrome’

as they fail to care for what is provided whilst anticipating more help, further cementing the problem

rather than creating a lasting solution (Mukeku, 2006). The challenge presented with the proposition

of this study therefore lies in trying to identify any existing built forms in Nairobi City that have been

socially engaged with the end ‘community’ users, documenting their impacts as contextualised

interventions implemented with a view to enhancing sustainable decent built environments for the

poor.

By expounding the concept of participation/social engagement in the built forms for the poor, this

dissertation aims to propose the need to rethink the premises of the present conventional top-down

approach to designing as much as the building for the poor, requiring the architects in Nairobi and

Kenya as a whole to serve as enablers for the poor without necessarily abandoning their traditional

role of form-giver in the mainstream of the profession.

>Fig 1.03: SLUM ERADICATION, A FLAWED METHOD Slum eradication; a method of solving the community building problem of slums by relocating slum residents to more ‘modern’ flats has proved to be counterproductive as it takes no account of the residents’ pre existing ‘community’ socio-economic fabric and culture. Source: Author, 2015.

PROBLEM STATEMENT 1.3.

PREAMBLE

BACKGROUND OF STUDY

PROBLEM STATEMENT


SCOPE & LIMITATIONS




4

i. Identify any existing built forms that have been socially engaged with the poor towards the

realisation of sustainable decent built environments in the context of study.

ii. Establish the positive impacts that socially engaged built forms have on the immediate contexts

of the poor in endeavors aimed at creating sustainable decent built environments .

iii. Establish a set of criteria that can be employed to serve as guidelines for the professionals in

future proactive social engagements with the poor.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 1.4.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1.5.

i. Are there any existing built forms that have been socially engaged with the poor towards the

realisation of sustainable decent built environments in the context of study?

ii. What positive impacts do socially engaged built forms have on the immediate contexts of the

poor in endeavors aimed at creating sustainable decent built environments?

iii. What set of criteria can be employed to serve as guidelines for the professionals in future

proactive social engagements with the poor?

PREAMBLE

BACKGROUND OF STUDY

PROBLEM STATEMENT



SCOPE & LIMITATIONS



>Fig 1.04: IMAGE SHOWING THE MOST COMMON PHYSICAL STATE OF BUILT FORMS FOR THE POOR IN NAIROBI The architectural advancements that serve as efforts directed towards poverty alleviation should primarily address those constants that exacerbate the vulnerability levels of the urban poor with a special focus on development of infrastructure and production support services. Source: christianals.com, 2015.

5

Against a background of inadequacies in the present conventional top-down approach to solving

‘community’ building problems at the grass root level in slums and the ever increasing population of

the poor society (Figure 1.05) being a reality in the urban settings of Nairobi City, there is need to

reverse these trends through proactive social engagement with the poor architecturally. If any,

socially engaged interventions already implemented with a view to enhancing a sustainable decent

built environment for the urban poor in Nairobi City have gone without proper contemporary

documentation and recognition. It is therefore imperative to study these few examples that have

been set forth to spearhead this notion of participation/social engagement in architectural built

forms for the poor and allow relevant recommendations to streamline and scale it up.

STUDY JUSTIFICATION 1.6.

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY 1.7.

The main aim of this research is to attempt to engage - to learn and teach - the language of social

engagement in the built forms for the poor in the city and country as a whole. Currently, in the

Kenyan context and specifically in Nairobi City, no study has been undertaken to establish the positive

impacts that socially engaged built forms have on the poor. By undertaking this study, it is the

author’s wish and in the best interests that questions of social concerns for the poor society will form

a basis of preoccupation in the mainstream of the architectural profession and discourse.

PREAMBLE

BACKGROUND OF STUDY

PROBLEM STATEMENT


SCOPE & LIMITATIONS



>Fig 1.05: GROWTH OF SLUMS IN NAIROBI REPRESENTS AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBERS OF THE URBAN POOR Source: ETH Studio Basel and Andres Herzog, 2007.


6

Even though this report equates the urban poor with informal settlements in efforts aimed at

defining whom the urban poor are in Nairobi City, due consideration is taken into the huge overlap

existing between the terms ‘slum dweller’ and the ‘urban poor’ noting that only 70 - 75% of slum

dwellers in Nairobi City are actually poor (UN-Habitat, 2003). Nonetheless, for purposes of carrying

out this research the study will only focus on the built up architectural interventions that have

attempted to incorporate the aspect of participation/social engagement with a view to enhancing a

sustainable decent built environment for the urban poor in the slums of the city as sufficient case

studies (Figure 1.06).

SCOPE 1.8.

LIMITATIONS 1.9.

The nature of the all-encompassing scope defining the population under study, together with time

constraints will persist as major challenges towards the realisation of this dissertation. Entailing that it

will not be feasible to study the whole entire urban poor population in the scheduled time allocated

(cross-sectional study). Therefore, an identification of a good representation serving as a sample of

the wider population is imperative in order to facilitate a much easier transition into the actual

fieldwork process.

>Fig 1.06: SCOPE OF THE THESIS The scope of this thesis is limited to the built environment, mainly focusing on architectural interventions that have incorporated the aspect of participation/social engagement. Source: www.architectureau.com, 2015.

PREAMBLE

BACKGROUND OF STUDY

PROBLEM STATEMENT


SCOPE & LIMITATIONS




7

KEY TERMINOLOGIES 1.11.

i. Community: This refers to a close social group of people whose members have a form of

collective responsibility in matters of public choice; influencing decisions that ultimately affect

their livelihood.

ii. Participation/social engagement in architecture: A concept primarily concerned with the action

of making architecture a process rather than a product by advocating that building users have

more say through effective participation in the decisions that shape their built environment.

iii. Poor: The term best represents that group of persons spatially, socially and economically

sidelined, living in appalling circumstances characterised by substandard housing conditions,

uncertain land tenures, inadequate or no basic service provision (Figure 1.07).

iv. Sustainable decent built environment: This is a built environment that seeks to address the

immediate basic needs of all people whilst outspreading opportunities for economic,

environmental and social advancements.

1.10. ASSUMPTIONS

Though no form of documentation has been carried out on the built up contextualised interventions

that are to be studied as case studies illustrating wider ‘community’ participation, it is assumed that

the concerns of the poor in context have been addressed through proactive social engagement. By

substantiating the accrued positive impacts of the socially engaged built forms in terms of the

immediate wider social, economic and environmental contexts, it can be concluded through

generalisations that participation/social engagement is what works in the provision of adequate

architectural services for the poor in Kenya and the world over.

PREAMBLE

BACKGROUND OF STUDY

PROBLEM STATEMENT


SCOPE & LIMITATIONS




SCOPE & LIMITATIONS

>Fig 1.07: SLUM POPULATIONS IN URBAN AFRICA REPRESENTING THE POOR Source: m.mgafrica.com, 2015.


8

Divided into five chapters (Figure 1.08), this research’s framing of chapter one forms the preamble to

the topic of study. By offering grounding information in the brief introduction and background of the

study, the fitting of the problem statement in context reveals the neglect with which the social

concerns for the poor are accorded in terms of inadequacies in the provision of architectural services.

This then serves as the backdrop necessitating the study.

The theoretical framework of the study is under chapter two. It begins with a section attempting to

define who the poor are in Nairobi through highlighting the vulnerabilities that face them. A clear

understanding that is participation/social engagement is thus established on how to engage with the

urban poor in contributing to the overall efforts aimed at eradicating poverty. Further literature

content is reviewed with the aim of expounding the concept of social engagement in the built forms

for the poor.

The main body of chapter three consists of an outline of the research methodology employed by the

author in the fieldwork process to aid in data collection and processing.

Chapter four forms the main body of this study. The fieldwork process will be carried out using the

research criteria established and further expounded on in chapter two and three respectively as

relevant guidelines in analysing the selected case studies as precedent practices. All this with the

main aim of making well informed conclusions and recommendations.

Conclusions and recommendations are contained in this final section of chapter five summarising the

research paper, where optimum ways of dealing with the issue of neglect of social concerns for the

poor in terms of provision of architectural services are provided for in the form of guidelines.

ORGANISATION OF STUDY 1.12.

Chapter One

Chapter Two

Chapter Three

Chapter Four

Chapter Five

>Fig 1.08: INFOGRAPHIC OF CHAPTER BREAKDOWN This research is broken down into five broad chapters with inherent sub-headings to ease the reader’s understanding of the topic of discussion. Source: Author, 2015.

PREAMBLE

BACKGROUND OF STUDY

PROBLEM STATEMENT


SCOPE & LIMITATIONS




THE IMPACTS THAT SOCIALLY ENGAGED BUILT...

Documents

Transcript of THE IMPACTS THAT SOCIALLY ENGAGED BUILT...