The owner occupier democracy and violation of building by-laws

Habitat International 33 (2009) 485–498

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

The owner occupier democracy and violation of building by-laws Robert Wambugu Rukwaro* School of The Built Environment, University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 30197-0100, Nairobi, Kenya

a b s t r a c t Keywords: Owner occupier Democracy Extension Violation Kenya building code Residential estate

This research is based on a case study of Buru Buru estate, the biggest middle class residential estate in Nairobi, Kenya. Casual observations in Buru Buru estate show that there has been indiscriminate design and construction of house extensions with no reference to building by-laws and zoning ordinances. The study has three main objectives namely; to establish the violated building By-laws during construction of the extensions, to establish the owner occupier reasons for these violations and to examine the role of culture and building experts in changing the By-laws. The By-law issues investigated include; the size of the spaces, the building setbacks and heights; lighting, ventilation, internal courts, the plot coverages and the plot ratios. The study set out to establish the extent of the violation of these building by-laws by carrying out a survey and observations of the sampled 89 Buru Buru plots which had extension constructions. The study relied on the descriptive and spatial analysis of the data collected from the sample. The study revealed that building regulations were in conflict with needs and circumstance of the residents of Buru Buru estate. This has led them to violate the By-laws. The study has also established that the most violated building regulations are those relating to setbacks, area of inner courts, area and dimensions of spaces, plot coverage, plot ratio and building height. There is need to re-look at these Bylaws through discussions among the building experts, local residents and the Nairobi City Council. This study has recommended that in the process of rewriting the regulations it will be important to incorporate the concerns of local residents and the whole process should be democratic. Finally, the new legislation should take into consideration the traditional culture and the present socio-economic demands of the people and their aesthetic orientations in buildings. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction The Kenya Government is very clear on the quality of housing it advocates for its citizens. It was in the Sessional Paper No.5 1966– 1967 and the Development Plans of 1974–1978 and 1978–1983 that the Government stated that the prime objective in the housing policy was to move towards a situation where every family would live in a decent house which provides at least the basic standard of a healthy environment, privacy and security. The Development Plan of 1974–1978 went on to state that the Government would ensure that the design and construction of houses conformed to building standards and that each housing unit constructed in urban areas should have at least two rooms, a kitchen and a toilet. While the minimum dimensional requirements of spaces for residential buildings are very clear, it is unfortunate that they are not fully followed. This has led to construction of extensions in Buru Buru estate which has violated the building code. This indiscriminate design and construction of extensions is the focus of this study.

* Tel.: þ254 020 2729700; mobile: þ254 0722259051. E-mail address: [email protected] 0197-3975/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.03.004

The main research question is why did the owner occupier contravene the building by-laws with impunity? Thus the aim of this research is to collect and analyse the data of building violations in Buru Buru estate in order to understand how owner occupiers designed and constructed extensions that contravened the building codes and identify the most violated by-laws. The study further examined how the residents could be involved in modifying the bylaws. Building code violations and owner occupier democracy Hu Xiangcheng (2002) views Building Code violations as a legal lexicon of modern urban planning and management, targeting those specific individual actions which are in contravention of a normalised and unified social system. He further notes that violations are offshots of individual needs and beneath their surface resides a critique towards the construction of a particular idealisation aesthetics; a battle between an individual and ideal democratic model constructed in a collective society. In a period when ‘‘freedom and democracy’’ have seemingly become a predominately accepted standard for which to evaluate the

486

R.W. Rukwaro / Habitat International 33 (2009) 485–498

‘‘right’’ and ‘‘wrong’’ of a country, every attempt should be made to construct a ‘‘legal’’ basis for the rationalisation of this principle into a pervasive and unquestioned epistemology through continuous creation of new space in which to enact this legal standard. One may ask whether individuals who are owner occupiers have democratic rights to create the new spaces in their plots as they wish? In their very inception they are confronted with failure and an ephemeral nature. ‘‘Building Code violations’’ occur throughout the totality of society using one wrong to subvert another ‘wrong’. The process is visible only as a consciously initiative resistance which cannot be characterised or judged. Visible, is only the discrepancy between space and time, and delayed logic of the conflict, with cultural actions leaving the imprint of failure. Hu Xiangcheng (2002), conducted research on Building code violations in social reconstruction projects at the Chinese country side. He collected and analysed data on the evidence of Building Code violations in the rural areas surrounding Shanghai. The results revealed that people at the grassroots level are able to use their own creativity and intelligence and resisted the organisation and social distribution system with which they did not concur. This meant that the search for a possible route between government planning and personal idealism leans strongly on a balance between theory and practice and greater is the relationship between regional environment and traditional humanist practices and resources. Further a study done by Rutto (2008) on ‘‘The Impact of Development Standards of Sustainable Neighbourhood’’, concluded that to achieve a sustainable neighbourhood, there must be concerted efforts of developing appropriate standards which reflects societal aspirations. The locals must be involved in coming up with development standards of neighbourhood. Both the findings by Hu Xiangcheng and Rutto demonstrate that the wishes of the owner occupiers must be addressed as the government implements its building standards. This also means that the owner occupiers are keen to meet certain intrinsic forces when defining their spatial needs in the standards. Hu Xiangcheng (2002) believes violation is a rebellious action against a certain dominant and normative standard. With regard to culture, the questions he poses include; ‘‘who sets or controls these standards? What ideologies are the values of these standards based upon? What is the nature of the path to modernity which we are currently travelling?’’ The same can be said of the Kenyan situation where the Building Code was adopted from Britain during the colonial days. After attaining independence in 1963 the Local Government, which controls the local authorities, has not undertaken a comprehensive revision of the Building Code and it is relaxed in reinforcing it. In 1975, the Housing Research and Development Unit of the University of Nairobi developed Housing By-laws (Housing Research and Development Unit, 1975) and later in 1995 the Minister for Local Government enacted (Adoptive – By-laws), (Building), (Amendment) Order, 1995. Both of these documents focused on relaxing the Bylaws so that they can be used for high density or low-cost (or low income) residential areas. Basically, the latter document only altered By-laws 215–227 in the Building Code (1968). Otherwise, it is unfortunate after over forty years of independence the Government of Kenya has not shown any notable keeness in defining her core values in the Building Code. For example, the Kenyan Building Code has never had a fundamental change even of the measuring units, which are still in the imperial system. Further, these Building Bylaws have been ignored by the very people who were supposed to be guiding the proper implementation of the built environment – especially for design and construction of buildings. Arising from this critic, there is a need to see the theory and practice of building standards being congruent. This means the owner occupiers have a right to subvert the building standards and use their creativity

and intelligence in design and construction of their home extensions to meet their needs and desires if the local authorities do not have building standards that are congruent and responsive to their space needs. Zoning ordinance Land use planning and zoning are important tools in contemporary national policies. The Physical Planning Acts (1996) and the Town Planning Act (1931) are used for the purpose of land use planning in urban centres and developments of such physical facilities such as roads, buildings and factory location. The urban development parameters include; plot coverage and plot ratio for each zone (Kimani 2008). The Physical Planning Act also deals with the changes in the use or density of any building, land or the subdivision of any land. It empowers local authorities to prohibit or control use and development of land and buildings in the interest of proper and orderly development of its area. Further, the Act controls or prohibits the subdivision of land or existing plots into smaller units. The zones are defined as residential, industrial, commercial and recreational within an urban setting. Buru Buru estate, which is the case study of this investigation, is a residential zone with the plot coverage of 50 per cent and plot ratio of 0.75. The owner occupiers of Buru Buru estate were allowed by Nairobi City Council to expand their main houses by adding one room or domestic servant quarters with two rooms, a cooking space, toilet and shower room. Kenyan building code The Kenya Building Code (1968) refers to the minimum performance standards for design and construction of the original buildings and the extensions. The statutory controls of the construction and design are a matter of public concerns. For example, the By-law 24 summarizes the concerns by stating that all new buildings shall be so sited on a plot as to ensure hygienic and sanitary conditions and to avoid as far as possible any nuisance or annoyance to the owner or occupier or the neighbouring plots. The specific concerns are addressed below under the following subsections. Building setbacks Space in front of the domestic building The By-law 17(1) states that space in front of the domestic building should not be less than 6 m in width from the street. The By-law 17 (2) stresses that the frontage of domestic house, shall be free from any building thereon above the level of the ground, except a fence, wall or gate not exceeding 1.35 m in height or a portico, porch, step or other like projection from the building. The By-law 26 retaliates that no building shall be so sited as to have a principal frontage abutting on to a street of less than 9 m in width. The By-law 29 (1) is clear on the height of boundary walls, screens, walls, fences, or other means of enclosures of residential plots that it shall not be erected to a greater height than 1.35 m, where abutting on to a street or in front of the building line of the main building or 1.8 m in any other case. Accessibility to separate tenancy within the plot The By-law 20(2) states that every domestic building, every dwelling and every separate tenancy or occupancy, shall have independent access to a street, such street not being a sanitary lane or passage. Only dwellings contained in a block of flats or separate offices and occupancies within the building above the street level, may have a common access to such street. The By-law 21 emphasises that

R.W. Rukwaro / Habitat International 33 (2009) 485–498

external passage between the buildings erected on the same plot or between buildings and boundaries of the plot on which such building is situated, shall have minimum dimensions of 1.2 m in width and 2.1 m in height. Further, the By-law 22 notes that space for all service must be left on each plot for the purpose of serving any building and the means of access to such approved dimensions by local authority.

487

location of the window should also consider the privacy requirements of the rooms. The location of windows should avoid glare. Emphasis of the direct sunlight is encouraged through the windows into the rooms. The By-law 151 cites that every habitable room shall have a window or windows opening directly into the external air which shall have for the purpose of daylight, a total area exclusive of frames, equal to at least one tenth of the floor area of such a room.

Natural ventilation Privacy Natural ventilation provides a healthy living space and is achieved by providing adequate clearance of external opening in every room. The arrangement and the size of the rooms contribute to better ventilation of spaces. Opposite walls of rooms are desirable to have windows to facilitate cross ventilation. The owner occupier should locate the windows on the face of the building oriented to wind flow. Windows should not be located on the building face that has adjoining features that can cause obstruction. Internal partitions must ensure that there are outlets that allow movement of air from one side of the room to another and vice versa. The By-law 155 (1) stipulates that every habitable room shall have sufficient number of approved permanent air vents so arranged as to ensure cross or through ventilation to the external air. The adequate number of permanent air vents should be located to all the openings not less than 450 mm from the ceiling height above the openings. The By-law 14 states that the building dwellers require fresh air from outside the building. The window opening should be at least one-twentieth of the floor area of the room and should open to the external air. The By-law 18 (1) is explicit in regard to the window of a habitable room in that it must be positioned opposite to an unobstructed open space of 2.4 m from; the plot boundary facing window, boundary abutting on to a street or land and a wall of a height of 1.5 m above the floor of a room which the window serves. The nearest boundary obstruction of the plot should be measured at right angle. The By-law 152 (1) notes that window of a habitable room shall have direct communication with external air and any physical obstruction vertical face shall not be less than 2.4 m away from the wall with the window. The By-law 153 is emphatic that a person shall not erect behind back dwellings. The By-law 154(2) indicates that through ventilation to the rooms may also be obtained by communication with one external wall by way of a lobby or passage, which is itself adequately ventilated to receive external air.

Man views privacy as one of the main reasons for creating his abode. High privacy in a space helps to create satisfaction of space among the dwellers. Inadequate provision of privacy in rooms results in conflicts, irritation and frustration of house occupants. Windows should be located in such away that, passers-by and neighbours do not have the advantage of viewing into habitable spaces. Privacy is required for home activities such as reading, meditation, resting and studying among others. Ordinarily bedrooms and bathrooms are among the spaces requiring high privacy levels. The requirement of privacy in room is indirectly referred to by the by-laws stating the size of rooms, the window heights and the area of internal court. Internal court area By-law 19 (1) deals with the minimum measurements of the internal courtyard or open space. The internal court created between the buildings should meet the area requirements of 31.5 m2 with a minimum length of 4.5 m and must be free from obstructions. This By-law sets the requirements for ventilation, lighting and the sunlight penetration into the rooms facing the court. Minimum space sizes for habitable rooms Table 1 presents minimum areas and size requirements of spaces for residential buildings that must be met by the owner occupier when constructing an extension: These requirements of space sizes appear in the By-laws No. 155–160. The By-laws also indicate the minimum ceiling height, the minimum areas of permanent vents and clear windows (Table 1). The approval procedures of architectural drawings by local authorities

Natural lighting This is provision of vision to the activities carried in the habitable spaces. The natural lighting of spaces should take into consideration various aspects such as display, privacy, prestige and mood. Inadequate lighting of spaces causes fatigue, irritation and nervousness, and these result in frustration and conflict among building occupants. Window measuring not less than 1200 mm in height is acceptable to provide adequate natural lighting. The height and

Normally, anybody wishing to construct a building or do an extension to an existing building must apply to his/her respective Local Authority for approval. According to the Kenya Building Code (1968), after receipt of a duly completed application form and other particulars, the Local Authority should notify the applicant of the outcome within 30 days. The approval process involves ensuring that any structure being erected meets certain requirements; among them the materials to

Table 1 Minimum areas and sizes requirements of spaces for residential buildings. Space parameters

Types of spaces Habitable room

Kitchen

One room dwelling unit

Covered cooking space

Water closet

Bathroom

Area (m2) Width (m) Length (m) C. H. (m) P.V. area (m2) Window with P.V. area (m2)

14.00 2.00 – 2.28 5% FA 10% FA

5.58 1.83 – 2.44 5% FA 10% FA

3.25 – – – 5% FA 10% FA

– 1.22 – 2.00 5% FA 10% FA

– 0.76 1.37 2.135 0.013 0.013

2.32 1.07 10% FA 2.14 0.013 0.013

key; FA – floor area in metres square p.v. – permanent vent c.h. – ceiling height. Source: building code, 1968.

488

R.W. Rukwaro / Habitat International 33 (2009) 485–498

Fig. 1.

Buru Buru Estate and its environs source: Tourist Maps (K) LTD (2004).

be used and the adherence to laid down minimum sizes of the spaces (Table 1). However, due to institutional irregularities and laxity, some approvals may take as long as one year (Musau, 1990). Owing to the delays experienced by developers, many of them commence the construction works while awaiting the approval, hoping it will be an affirmation. Apart from being illegal, buildings constructed without approval are likely to be unsafe for human occupation. Without approval of the extensions, the omission

might lead to loss of architectural identity which is the character of the residential estates. Methods This section describes the methodology used in the study and details out the study’s data sources, sampling design, analysis and presentation. The research design employed in this study was

R.W. Rukwaro / Habitat International 33 (2009) 485–498

a case study of Buru Buru estate. The location of Buru Buru estate and its environs is shown in Fig. 1. For data collection, the study relied on secondary and the primary data. The primary data was collected through research tools such as questionnaires, discussions and observations. Secondary data sources involved the review of the related literature on the building By-laws in Kenya and theories of house owner democracy in the buildings.

489

while 64% were owner occupiers (57 in number). The demographic data on the residents, the type of improvements undertaken on the premises and the building regulations violated were collected in the field. This research focussed more on home extensions than other building improvements because this was the area where most building By-laws were violated. Data collection

Rationale of Buru Buru estate as a case study Buru Buru estate was selected for this research because it was one of the largest estates developed in Nairobi City in Eastland area by the Government of Kenya and the Nairobi City Council (NCC) in collaboration with the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC). It was constructed over a period of ten years (1973–1983). It featured a variety of house designs of different sizes on different sizes of plots. A mixture of maisonettes and bungalows was erected throughout the whole estate. There were 4710 units covering an area of about 140 ha. Buru Buru estate has semi-detached units organised in clusters. The estate has a population of more than 35,000 people and a density of approximately 250 persons per hectare. The estate is cosmopolitan in its population. It is an owner occupied mortgage housing scheme meant for the middle income group. The research adapted the income group categorisation as shown in Table 2 where the middle class households earnings ranged between $305–1538 per month in October 2005 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2007). As a case study, Buru Buru estate answers the question of ‘‘how’’ the home improvements failed to conform to the existing building regulations. This research defines improvement as alterations done on the existing building for the purpose of aesthetic or economic value. Sampling design A reconnaissance survey was first conducted in the first week of May 2007 and it was during this period when questionnaires and interviews were formulated, the schedule of observation and unit of analysis were then identified and the sampling procedures designed (Pittenger, 2003). This research was carried out between May and June 2007. To reduce costs and control the quality of data collected, 89 plots with extensions within the Buru Buru estate were randomly selected from 4710 plots appearing on the Master Development Plan of the whole estate. The Master Plan was prepared by the project architects – Mutiso Menezes International Architect (1984). The interviewees Both the owner occupiers and tenants, were interviewed. The occupants of the houses were established following visits to the households. 36% of those interviewed were tenants (32 in number)

Table 2 Income groups for Nairobi based on the 2005/2006 integrated household budget survey by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics.

Low income Middle income (lower) Middle income (upper) High income

Monthly earning (US dollars $) (1$ ¼ Kshs.78)

Proportion of total households

Below 304 305–982 983–1538 Above 1538

72% 16% 8% 4%

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics (2007).

This study set out to establish the violations of the building codes and zoning ordinances which have occurred in Buru Buru estate when the owner occupiers or absentee landlords were erecting the extensions. The study also wanted to find out the reasons for violations. The research also identified the types of main houses that the extensions were constructed. Some of the issues raised on the building code and zoning ordinances related to building setbacks, natural ventilations and lighting, privacy, internal courts and the size of the rooms as well as use of the extensions. The study was conducted with the help of three research assistants. Data presentation and analysis Data collected from the field was analysed using both descriptive, t-test and spatial analysis which included the computation of frequencies, percentages, tables and pie chart. Location map of case study, original building drawings and photographs were also used for the presentation of the primary data. Results Demographic characteristics of residents in Buru Buru estate Table 3 compared tenants’ and owner occupiers’ households in the sample for a number of variables. Several important facts were brought out by these data. First, there is scarcely any difference between tenants’ and owner occupiers’ households in the middle income group. Over one third of the households (36%) in the sample were tenants. This proportion remained relatively constant if analysed separately in terms of income groups and the sex of the head of the household (Table 3). The study revealed that the occupations of the employed household heads ranged from company executives, bankers, and professionals. There were also household heads with their own businesses. From these results, it is evident that the majority of the household heads had occupations which were economically empowering, hence they were able to invest their financial resources in the improvement of their homes. The data in Table 3 indicates a lack of strong relationship between the type of residents and their income levels. The only demographic variables that differed significantly between tenant and owner occupier groups were the ages of the heads of

Table 3 Characteristics of households: tenants and owner occupiers in Buru Buru estate; Nairobi. Variable

Total sample Female household head Male household head Middle income (Lower) Middle income (Upper) Source: survey: 2008. a Proportion of total. b Proportion of category.

Total

Tenants

Owner occupiers

N

%a

N

%b

N

%b

89 23 66 52 57

100 26 74 58 42

32 8 24 21 13

35 35 36 36 35

57 15 47 31 24

65 65 64 64 65

490

R.W. Rukwaro / Habitat International 33 (2009) 485–498

Table 4 Mean characteristics of households: tenants and owner occupier Buru Buru Estate Nairobi. Variable/statistics

Children less than 21yrs Age of head of household-man Age of wife/head of household-woman Size of household Education in years of head of household-man Education in years of wife or head of household-woman Period of stay in residence Number employed

Population

Tenants

Owner occupier

Different

t-Test

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

1.5 45.2 40

1.1 10.5 9.5

2.1 38.6 35.3

1.2 9.4 9

1.1 49 43

0.9 9.3 8.8

1.0 10.4 7.7

P-value

5.3 15.5

1.6 3.4

3.8 17.6

1.4 3.1

6.1 14.4

0.9 3

2.3 3.2

P < 0.05 P < 0.05

13.2

3.9

15.3

3.6

12.1

4

3.2

P < 0.05

9.6 1.5

5.5 0.7

4.7 1.8

4.2 0.6

12.3 1.3

4.1 0.6

7.6 0.5

P < 0.05 Not significant

Not significant P < 0.05 Not significant

Source: survey, 2008.

households (men or women), the size of the household, the education in years of the head of household-man or woman and the period of stay in residence (Table 4). Owner occupier respondents were reported to have stayed in the residence on an average of 7.6 years longer than tenant respondents. These findings indicated that the tenants’ turnover at the estate was high. Some of the reasons given for the high turnovers were that the room sizes were not enough for family activities, the privacy of rooms was not catered for well, theft, misunderstandings with neighbours and the conflict in class status. Tenants head of households, who were ladies had 3.2 years of education longer than the owner occupier lady respondents. Most of tenant ladies had attained a university education. Table 4 indicates weak relationship between the type of residents and numbers employed in the household or the number of children less than 21 years in the households. But the data did suggest that owner occupiers had larger household sizes, which included more and older adults than those in tenant occupied households. The adults included in the owner households were dependent members living with the family. Types of home improvements The tenants who wanted to improve the residences had to obtain written permission from the landlords first. The tenants were allowed to improve the buildings as long as they did not interfere with the structure of the building. Often the tenants had to pay for the materials and labour as a condition to be allowed by

landlords to improve the houses. In most cases, the landlords ensured any improvements remain at the premises after the tenants moved out of the houses. Any improvements done by the tenants was left to the benefit of the landlords since they added value to the properties. Even for owner occupiers to undertake alterations of an existing building, they ensured that they obtained written consent from NCC prior to any commencement of any construction work at site. This study identified 15 types of improvements made to the homes by both tenants and owner occupiers (Table 5). In a good number of cases the tenants were not allowed to undertake any construction of extensions. This was because many landlords were reluctant to allow the tenants to do such alterations. These types of improvements also demanded high building costs, interfered with the structure of the building and required approval from NCC which took too long to get. The improvements that landlords easily approved to be undertaken by tenants included changing the interior de´cor of the house (61%), changing sanitary fittings (64%), installing security systems (63%) and changing lighting fittings (65%). The security system involved mainly installing alarms and call systems from private security firms. These types of alterations did not require approval from NCC but only from the landlords. The highly rated improvements among the owner occupiers included doing internal layout changes (100%), construction of extensions (100%) and introducing soft and hard surfaces landscape within the compound (71%). All these type of work had highest priority for the owners, needed approval from NCC and a lot of

Table 5 Type of home improvements observed in tenant’s and owner occupiers’ houses in Buru Buru Estate, Nairobi. Type of improvement

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Internal Layout changes Fitting burglar proof windows Fitting burglar proof doors Fitting steel gate Erecting stones/steel fencing Changing interior decor Changing lighting fixtures/fittings Introducing soft and hard landscape Changing sanitary fittings – basins, sinks, and water closets Construction extensions Installing instant shower heater Installing security system Installing T.V reception dishes and aerials Changing electrical outlets and fittings Fixing rainwater goods- drains, gutter and external pipes

Source: survey, 2008.

Items per item improved

Tenants

Owner occupiers

Total no ofcases

%

Number of cases

%

Number of cases

%

21 33 45 23 67 54 31 17 25

26 37 51 26 75 61 35 19 28

– 7 16 9 20 30 20 5 16

– 22 36 39 33 56 65 29 64

21 26 29 14 47 24 11 15 9

100 78 64 61 67 44 35 71 36

54 85 46 74 32 32

61 96 52 83 36 36

– 30 29 31 14 9

– 35 63 42 44 28

54 55 17 43 18 23

100 65 37 58 56 72

R.W. Rukwaro / Habitat International 33 (2009) 485–498

capital. The least popular home improvement done by the owners included changing sanitary fittings (36%) and lighting fixtures and fittings (35%); and installing security system (37%). The reasons given for these occurrences were that the houses were in good condition and the owners were satisfied when they bought them. Extent of compliance with building by-laws in construction of extensions within Buru Buru estate

491

Table 6 Frequencies of plot ratios for 89 plots with extensions. Plot ratio

Frequency in percentage

0.41–0.6 0.61–0.8 0.81–1.0 1.01–1.2 Total

15 31 35 19 100

Source: survey, 2008.

The zoning ordinances and the building By-laws were evaluated vis a vis their compliance in the extensions constructed in Buru Buru estate. The plot ratio, plot coverage and uses of extensions were some of the issues relating to the zoning ordinance that were analysed. The building By-laws analysed were those relating to internal courts, lighting, ventilation, privacy and the size of spaces in extensions. Zoning ordinances Plot ratio Over 54% of the plots on which extensions were constructed had a plot ratio of over 0.75 (Table 6). This meant that the extensions on upper and ground floors areas negated the law giving a plot ratio of 0.75. High plot ratios lead to high densification and massing of Buru Buru Estate. As a result, the taller extensions such as the two bedroomed maisonettes and the one or two bedroomed flats, were constructed next to the main houses. The high heights of extensions implied that the original low and uniform heights of main houses were disrupted by the development of extensions. The high extensions obstructed the direct sunlight in the room windows facing the court. The dominance of the extensions to the main houses changed the appearance of Buru Buru estate (Photograph 1). From this finding it seemed the height, the plot ratio and massing were very important considerations in shaping the integration of the main houses and extensions. Plot coverages 71% of the plots with extensions had plot coverages of over 50% (Table 7). This demonstrated that the ground floor areas of the extensions were more than the permissible plot coverage of 50%.

This meant that plots were congested with buildings thus leaving very small areas for internal courts between the extensions and the main houses (Fig. 2). The study revealed plot coverage and massing were some of the issues that the house owners needed to address to achieve a more incorporated extension with the main house. Activities of extensions Out of a sample of 89 plots with extensions, 47 had bungalows and 42 had maisonettes as their main house designs. There were 59 extension activities housed in the 47 plots with bungalow designs. Out of the 59 extension activities, about 31% were being used for commercial activities (bars, video libraries, butcheries, shops and salons) and the remaining 69% were used for living purposes (Table 8). Further the 54 extension activities were found in the 42 plots with maisonettes designs. Out of the 54 extension activities, about 33% were being used for commercial activities (bar, video library, shop and saloon) and the rest 67% were used for living purposes (Table 8). It is clear from the listed extension uses that the owners did not follow the Nairobi City Council permitted extension requirements i.e. an additional family room or domestic servant quarter. The home owners violated the By-law on extension as shown in Table 8. From Table 8, it is evident that the most constructed living purpose extensions were two bedroom maisonette (27%) followed by one bedroomed flat (24%). The most prevalent commercial activity was retail shops (19%). The extensions were constructed by owner occupiers for rent purposes and for meeting their domestic uses arising from ever expanding family spatial needs. The commercial spaces had verandahs, doors and windows at the ground levels fronting the streets. The upper extension levels had

Photograph 1. Varied heights of main houses and extensions along the junction of Mumias Road and Amasya Crescent.

492

R.W. Rukwaro / Habitat International 33 (2009) 485–498

Table 7 Frequencies of plot coverages for 89 plots with extensions. Plot coverages in percentage

Frequency in percentage

41–50 51–60 61–70 71–80 Total

29 47 20 4 100

Source: survey, 2008.

living spaces accessed through private areas at the ground levels which flanked the streets (Photograph 1). The data presented in Table 8 also showed that there was encroachment of commercial activities in Buru Buru estate which was zoned for residential uses only. This was a deviation from the original intentions of land uses in Buru Buru Estate (Kamau, 1985; Photograph 2). Irrespective of the latter, majority of the Buru Buru residents encouraged the extensions for commercial activities. The respondents argued that this mixed use in the plots was more sustainable for families looking for extra income since these were closer to them. This violation of zoning ordinances has resorted in a proliferation of new building types such as flats, maisonettes and commercial buildings within the estate.

Fig. 2. A sample plot with extension having restrictive court and external staircase in-between main house and extension. Source: survey, 2008.

R.W. Rukwaro / Habitat International 33 (2009) 485–498

493

Table 8 Frequencies of extension uses among the 89 plots with main houses. Main house design types

Extension designs types One bedroomed flats

Two bedroomed flats

One bedroomed bungalow

Two bedroomed Maisonettes

Bar/video library

Butcheries/ bedsitters

Retail shops/ saloon

Bedsitter/Retail shop

Total

Maisonettes Bungalows Total

12 12 24

– 16 16

3 3 6

18 9 27

2 3 5

– 3 3

5 3 8

7 4 11

47 53 100

Source: survey 2008.

Building by-laws Sizes of spaces in the extensions Table 9 showed that majority of habitable spaces in the extension designs met the minimum length of 2.0 m but only the two bedroom maisonette met the minimum required area of 14 m2 for the lounge. All the kitchens in the extensions had not met both the minimum width of 1.83 m and the minimum required area of 5.58 m2. The bedsitter, two bedroom maisonette and one bedroom bungalow extensions had bathrooms that met the minimum width (1.07 m) and the minimum area of 2.32 m2. The one and two bedroomed flats did not meet the bathroom width requirements. Bedsitters met the area requirements of a room which was supposed to be 3.25 m2 and the space for cooking which its minimum requirement was supposed to be 1.22 by 2.00 m. Table 9 also showed that the two bedroom maisonettes had more area, were easy to light and ventilate than other types of extensions probably because the activities in maisonettes were spread in the two levels for one house unit. In summary, the data in Table 9 showed that most of the spaces in extension designs violated the building By-laws since they did not meet the minimum space dimensions. Building setbacks Over 93% of the plots with extensions had boundary walls higher than 1.35 m which was the recommended height (Table 10). All the plots had boundary stone walls around them. From Table 10, the mode height is 5.1–6.0 m with a percentage of 32.6, and was

about five times to the allowed height. Photograph 3 showed that boundary walls served as part of the extension external walls with some having windows fixed to allow lighting and ventilation in the extended living rooms. It is clear from this photograph that what determined the height of the boundary walls was the number of floors the extension had and whether the extension had a gabled or hipped roofs. The extensions with hipped roofs were found to have external walls which acted as boundary walls and were shorter than those with the gabled roofs. Higher boundary walls measuring 1.35 m were also constructed for security purposes. Photographs 3 and 4 show that the extensions that extended to a point of the boundary wall being a part of the extension with the window being fixed on the boundary wall, left no space for the frontage. This was in violation of the building by-law that required the windows of a habitable living room to have direct access to external air and any physical obstruction’s vertical face should not be less than 2.4 m away from the wall with the window. The building frontage was supposed to be not less than the minimum 6.0 m from the street. Table 10 shows that the spaces around the building were not respected in the development of the extensions. Internal courts 84% of the plots with extensions had internal courts which did not meet the minimum space area of 31.5 m2 and the minimum length of 4.5 m (Table 11). This correlated well with the high plot ratios and plot coverages for the plots with the extensions (Tables 6, 7). This meant that much of the ground area was built. The smaller courts were found on the plots having the bungalows as the main houses. Probably this was because the available unbuilt

Photograph 2. A section of Buru Buru Estate as planned and designed by Menezes Mutiso International Architects.

494

R.W. Rukwaro / Habitat International 33 (2009) 485–498

Table 9 Types of extension designs, average internal dimensions and areas of spaces in the extensions. Type of extension design

One bedroomed bungalow One bedroomed flat Two bedroomed flat Two bedroomed Maisonette Bedsitter

Habitable space Bedrooms

Lounge

2.4  3.0 ¼ 7.2 2.4  3.2 ¼ 7.68 2.2  2.6 ¼ 5.72 2.2  3.7 ¼ 8.14 –

3.1  4.0 ¼ 12.4 2.7  3.5 ¼ 9.45 3.4  3.8 ¼ 12.92 2.45  6 ¼ 14.7 –

Kitchen

Bathroom (shower/water closet)

Room

Cooking space

1.65  3.0 ¼ 4.95 1.3  2.2 ¼ 2.86 1.8  2.8 ¼ 5.04 1.8  2.4 ¼ 4.32 –

1.95  2.0 ¼ 3.9 1.00  2.5 ¼ 2.5 1.00  2.4 ¼ 2.4 1.50  2.2 ¼ 3.3 1.65  2.6 ¼ 4.29

– – – – 3.0  .5 ¼ 10.5

– – – – 1.4  1.8 ¼ 2.52

Units of length in metres and those of areas in metres squared. Source: survey, 2008.

spaces for bungalow plots were smaller than those of maisonette for the same size of the extensions. From Table 11, it was observed that majority of the internal courts had small minimum lengths and hence were very narrow. This interfered with the privacy of the extensions and the main houses rooms with direct windows located in the court façade. Narrower and smaller plots seemed to yield smaller internal courts dimensions than 4.5 m the minimum stated by the building by-laws. The internal courts were used as light-wells. The study found out that the high extension external walls and roofs at the inner court interfered with the amount of the natural lighting, wind movement and cross ventilation through the rooms. The respondents felt the formed obstructions to the path of direct sunlight and wind movement to the rooms were also barriers to them since they (respondents) could not view outside beyond those tall walls. The courts were also used for drying clothes and relaxing during fine weather. The spaces were also used as children play areas. The respondents raised the issue that children play areas were inadequate and often they strayed outside the compounds hence endangering their health and safety. Privacy of spaces Most (51%) of the respondents strongly disagreed that extensions were private and very few (4%) felt that there was privacy in the extensions (Pie chart 1). The reasons given for lack of privacy by the respondents are given in the Table 12. Visual linkage through windows and doors was a major problem within the extensions. Most respondents (72%) felt that the location of windows was inappropriate since they (windows) were along external passages or the courts where people constantly pipped through the rooms as they passed. Natural ventilation and lighting 54% of the respondents in the extensions reported that they were not comfortable with the ventilation of the rooms. This was because of lack of cross ventilation through opposite windows or lobbies opening to the external areas. Further, some extensions had windows that opened onto obstructed areas where there were adjacent buildings with high walls. Of 89 plots with extensions, it was found out that 69% of the rooms windows opened into obstructed areas where the distances between windows and Table 10 Frequencies of heights of boundary walls for 89 plots with extensions. Height (m) of boundary wall

Frequency in percentage

Less than 2.0 2.1–3.0 3.1–4.0 4.1–5.0 5.1–6.0 Over 6.0 Total

7 20 19 15 33 7 100

Source: survey, 2008.

obstructions were less than 2.4 m as required by the building bylaws. From Table 13, it was found that most incidences of violations of window clearance occurred in the bathrooms (33%) and bedrooms (37%). These spaces were poorly lit. In these cases the window clearances were found to be less than the minimum required of 2.4 m. The respondents said that they had to use artificial lighting during the day to make these types of spaces habitable. The use of the artificial lighting during the day had a cost implication to the residents’ budget. 72% of respondents felt that direct and sufficient natural lighting was crucial in living spaces and kitchens, since those were the spaces where most house activities were being undertaken during the day. Accessibility to separate tenancy Only 16% of 89 plots had direct accesses from front to the back yard while the rest of the extensions had accesses only from the rear streets. 24 per cent of the plots with two bedroomed flat extensions had common accesses from the rear streets. This was violation of the building by-law since each tenancy should have an independent access from the street. Reasons for violations of the building by-laws Majority (85%) of the respondent give the reason for violating the building by-laws as family economic pleasures (Table 14). Rented extensions raised extra income to the families. 84% of the respondents felt that they had assumed they had a right to put up spaces they wanted. The owner occupiers felt the building by-laws were out of touch with their economic needs. They argued that the building standards were too complex, strict and too detached from their economic status. The home owners attitudes towards the bylaws notwithstanding, they ought to know that they could not compromise their safety, health and welfare in the design and construction of buildings. The owner occupiers were rebellious of these normative building standards because they felt they were hindering the pursuance of their economic well-being. Further the house owners felt that the Nairobi City Council’s (NCC) attitude to control was hampered by increase in the number of extensions constructed. They claimed that lack of adequate building inspectors to move around the whole city where the constructions were taking place and political interference in their city management as the NCC’s major bottleneck. The respondents were right since the City Town Planning Committee on 20th July 1982 noted that "continued lack of coordination among the Council’s Departments and ineffective machinery for the strict reinforcement of Council’s by-laws remain the greatest contributors to increased unplanned/unauthorised developments in the city" (Elazia, 1988). This study observed that by-law reinforcement of the City Council had not changed. In fact the fear of the Council was that continued violation of the by-laws might reach a point of no return if not checked. These managerial weakness of the council have helped the building owners to ascent

R.W. Rukwaro / Habitat International 33 (2009) 485–498

495

Photograph 3. Varied character of extensions with the main houses along Mumias Road.

their positions on developing the home extensions that meet their circumstances and were less constrained by the building by-laws. Other reasons given for not meeting the building standards were very restrictive building spaces for extensions that influenced the size, shape and arrangement of the rooms in the extensions. This was revealed by the cases where external staircases were placed inbetween the main house and extension or between the boundary wall and extension (Figs. 2 and 3). Culture and building code Most of respondents had come from rural areas where they had either lived in permanent houses where the communities were agriculturalists or in transient (ephemeral) houses for pastrolists. The settlement patterns of these communities were nucleated and

congrumerated and rarely did they live in linear and branched planned settlements (Anyamba, 1995; Rukwaro, 2005). The building materials used were vegetal and earthen. Communities were organised around ethnic groups and clans in the villages. This enabled them to develop survival strategies on the basis of strong solidarity. This was replicated in some enclaves in the Buru Buru estates where a particular ethnic group was found to dominate a particular cluster. This meant that communities still depended upon strong traditional ethnic and clan solidarity even in urban areas. These powerful ties secured social capital for the communities (UN – Habitat 2004). A more responsive house to the standard Kenyan family emphasised family structure (Rukwaro, 1997). Majority of respondents also said that they came from a scenario where the traditional land ownership in the rural setting was

Photograph 4. New extension architectural design forms fronting the junction of Mumias Road and Amasya Crescent.

496

R.W. Rukwaro / Habitat International 33 (2009) 485–498

Table 11 Frequencies of types, of main houses, average internal courts areas and average minimum lengths of the internal courts among the 89 plots. Types of the main houses

Plot sizes in metres

Average areas of internal courts (m2)

Average minimum lengths of internal courts in metres

Bungalow

5.6  21.0 7.5  20.0 9.0  27.0 9.7  27.0

6.6 7.5 32.0 64.0

1.1 1.0 3.55 6.55

10 7 20 16

6.0  24.0 6.2  24.0 7.2  18.0 Total

10.13 4.25 23.0

1.5 1.7 3.2

27 10 10 100

Maisonnette

Frequency in percentage

Source: survey, 2008.

communal and had generated varied settlement patterns. Rural villages expressed a social structure of kinship. In this connection, respondents took their rural settlements as the true home. A traditional Kenyan family, once established, retained its ancestral location (Anyamba 1995). The homestead expanded and contracted to suit the changing circumstances of the family. Rarely were there any formal building laws that guided these processes instead construction was guided by traditional building practices. It was also noted rural settings offered ample land for building among other social and economic activities. Buru Buru respondents viewed their residences as simply fixed space for accommodation and rarely referred to them as home. They saw their houses more of an exchange commodity serving to fulfil an economic need. This was one of the reasons for erecting extensions for rental purposes. Respondents viewed their Buru Buru house units as an entity which did not meet all the family needs. In an effort to meet these needs, respondents had modified the original prototype units. For example, most cultures in Kenya did not allow parents and aged children or in-laws to share the same roof. Hence the finite Buru Buru dwellings were seen as source of cultural conflict. Arising from this issues the house owners or absentee landlords had constructed extensions to cater for this deficiency of space. These engendered issues in construction were not addressed in the prototype Buru Buru buildings which were erected using the Building Code. The Building Code only identified the family house and the servant quarters but not independent houses for grown-up children and inlaws. It was observed that absentee landlords had erected extensions in Buru Buru estate and the tenants rented the whole compound including extensions and they stayed for longer period within such residences. This was because tenants were able to use the extensions for grown-up children, in-laws and house helps. This was in conformity with the cultural practices within many

Table 12 Frequencies of the reasons given by tenants for lack of privacy in extension rooms. Reasons

Frequency in percentage

Internal arrangement spaces Size of rooms Location of windows Site limitations

43 32 72 61

Source: survey, 2008.

cultures where it is common practice for the grown-up children to move out of the main house into the extensions. The role of building experts, local residents and Nairobi city council officials in changing building by-laws Majority of respondents stressed that there should be a technical committee comprising of town planners, environmental specialists, structural engineers, architects, community leaders, representatives from the fire department and other service providers within the Nairobi City Council (NCC). They felt that this committee should be given the mandate to study the existing bylaws and recommend modifications in consultation with the NCC’s Director of Town Planning and Architecture. As a matter of protocol any amendments to the by-laws governing the design and construction of buildings would require government approval after the citizens had been given time to submit their views. Through informal discussions with these building experts, this study found out that there was a need for thorough dialogue on the health and safety requirements of the extensions. It was agreed that existing by-laws did not meet the residents’ circumstantial spatial needs and economic benefits on the plot. In addition, the experts pointed out that the current building regulations were stricted and demanded very high planning standards that could not be met easily within the available residents’ resources. Arising from this

Table 13 Frequencies of incidences of violations of window clearances in extension spaces. Space use

Frequency in percentage

Living rooms Bedrooms Kitchen Bathrooms

10 37 15 33

Source: survey, 2008.

Table 14 Frequencies of reasons given for violations of the building by-laws.

Pie Chart 1. Responses on the privacy in the extension rooms. Statement responded to: extension rooms are private.

Reasons for violations

Frequency in percentage

Inadequate building periodic inspection by Nairobi City Council Restrictive building site for extensions Family economic pressures Nairobi City Council takes too long to approve architectural drawings Ignorance of the by-laws governing extension buildings Lack of consulting the building consultants Feeling they have a right in designing and constructing spaces they wanted The by-Laws define too high standards for design and construction of extensions Political interference of Nairobi City Council management

62

Source: survey, 2008.

74 86 81 54 48 84 82 42

R.W. Rukwaro / Habitat International 33 (2009) 485–498

497

Fig. 3. Original house bungalow design and extension with the external staircase. Source: survey 2008.

the experts and home owners felt that there need to dialogue with NCC on the optimum building standards in regard to the health and safety standards that should be observed. It was also noted that the critical standards being contravened by the home owners as they improved their dwellings included; plot coverage, plot ratio, plot setbacks, internal courts and building heights. When these building standards were not met, it was found that the resultant buildings had poor ventilation, poor lighting and lacked privacy among other deficiencies. Hence there is need to have a stakeholders consultative meeting on the building rules with a view to moderate the restrictions with a view to protect the health, safety and welfare of the dweller.

Discussions and suggestions This paper has argued that the existing building regulations are in conflict with the needs and circumstances of the residents of Buru Buru Estate. This paper further demonstrates that many owners of the home extensions have not only violated the building regulations but also created various types of hazards. This study found that the most violated building by-laws are 17(1), 17(2), 18(1), 19(1), 20(2), 21, 29(1), 152(1), 153, 154 (2), 155(1) and 155(2)– 160. The study has established that, although the Nairobi City Council recommended a standard home extension design of two rooms, a toilet and washing place, in reality the house owners were

498

R.W. Rukwaro / Habitat International 33 (2009) 485–498

erecting other extension designs such as two bedroomed maisonettes and two bedroomed flats. This research has revealed that the owners developed extensions which had no adequate fresh air, clear light, privacy, and well functioning recreation courts. The study has also demonstrated that the studied residential area has been encroached by commercial activities in total disregard of the Change of User stipulations. This demonstrates that if the owners were allowed to reshape the regulations as they deem fit, many technical building problems would be created instead. The study notes the enforcement of the present regulations is highly ineffective if not nil. This has enabled the owners to contravene the regulations with impunity since they are unreasonable. This study stresses that the deficiency in building regulations could be improved. In the process of rewriting these regulations, it is of paramount importance to take into account the concerns of residents and the process should incorporate a democratic element. The real challenge is to balance the needs of the residents and the circumstances with specific building standards. This paper acknowledges the existence of objective health and safety criteria that should be at the forefront of considerations by the experts and the need to constructively engage the residents in dialogue. The existing regulations condemn the presence of commercial activities in housing estates. The regulations should act from a point of inclusiveness of these activities since current planning policies encourage inclusion of commercial activities in the residential areas. Currently there is an emphasis on the close proximity of economic activities within residential areas. The local residents were keen on revision of the by-laws to allow this integrative rezoning which allows for multi-use development in Buru Buru estates. But as well, the key issue is to ensure the residents needs do not compromise their safety, health and welfare. The argument of modifying the building regulations is premised on a participatory approach that brings on board all stakeholders in the building industry to formulate by-laws that make cardinal the issues of health and safety of buildings and also incorporate the economic and space needs of the residents. The building regulations were adopted from the British Canon laws. These regulations reflected the building practices and codes of the British Society at the time of enactment. The culture divergence between the Kenyan societies and Britons has not been corrected in the Building Code. The adopted by-laws up to now have not incorporated how the Kenyan dwellings are and should be designed and used. This cultural differences is well captured for

example; the incidence of the one family house in urban settings in contrast to the construction of several houses for different users within a rural homestead to respond to privacy levels of family members and visiting relatives. This research suggests that the most prevalent extension designs built by the owner occupiers should be encouraged and improved where need be since that is what meets the owner occupiers economic and family needs. In this connection, the two bedroomed maisonettes and two bedroomed flats which were the preferred residential extensions and the retail shops which were the most built up commercial facility should be encouraged. In effect this will mean that larger sizes of the plots should be designated in residential estates to allow adequate spaces for home extensions as the need arises. References Anyamba, T. (1995). Towards an authentic African architecture. Nairobi: Architecture College Publishers. Elazia, K. L. (1988). The abuse of building code in construction of illegal structures. ‘‘A case study of Umoja Estate Phase One’’, unpublished Research Project, University of Nairobi. Housing Research and Development Unit. (1975). Housing by-laws in the Kenya building code. Nairobi: University of Nairobi. Kamau, K. (May 5, 1985). Residents of city estates need social centres. Sunday Standard. Nairobi. Kimani, M. (2008). Agriculture land management for sustainable development in rural Kenya. Africa Habitat Review, 2, 100–110. (Kenyan) Central Bureau of Statistics (August 2007). Kenya integrated household budget survey 2005/2006 (revised Edition). Musau, B. (1990). Contribution of building extension in alleviating the urban housing problem: ‘‘A case of Buru Buru Phase One’’, unpublished Research Project, University of Nairobi. Mutiso Menezes International Architects. (1984). Buru Buru master development plan. Nairobi: Archival Office. Pittenger, J. D. (2003). Behavioural research design and analysis. NY: McGraw Hill. Republic of Kenya. (1931). The town planning act (or ordinance) of 1931. Nairobi. Republic of Kenya. (1966). Sessional paper No. 5 of 1966–1967. Nairobi. Republic of Kenya. (1968). Building code. Nairobi. Republic of Kenya. (1974). Development plan 1974–1978. Nairobi. Republic of Kenya. (1978). Development plan 1978–1983. Nairobi. Republic of Kenya. (1995). Local government act-(adoptive-by-laws) (building) (Amendment) Order, 1995. Nairobi. Republic of Kenya. (1996). The physical planning cap 286 of 1996. Nairobi. Rukwaro, R. (1997). Kenyan Maasai Architecture in a changing Culture. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Nairobi. Rukwaro, R. (2005). Transformation of Maasai art and architecture. ARTS Nairobi. Rutto, R. C. (2008). The impact of development standards on sustainable neighbourhood development: a case study of Kilimani in Nairobi, Masters of Urban Management, unpublished Research Project, University of Nairobi, Nairobi. Tourist Maps (K) Ltd. (2004). A new road map Nairobi. Nairobi. Xiangcheng, Hu (2002). Building code violations. Documenta 12 MAGAZINE. Kassel.