Why Kenya's affordable housing push must prioritise security, comfort

Kenya’s affordable housing programme is gaining momentum, with thousands of units under construction and more planned. As a key pillar of the Bottom-Up Economic Transformation Agenda, it promises to reduce the housing deficit, create jobs, and boost local manufacturing.

But in the rush to hit these targets, a critical question that remains overlooked is what kind of homes are we building, and what kind of lives will they support?

Success cannot be measured solely by the number of units delivered or the cost per square meter. These are input metrics.

The real measure is how housing shapes human experiences in security, dignity, comfort, opportunity, and community.

Shelter is a basic need, but dignified housing that is well-connected, liveable, and climate-resilient is a public good. The contrast is stark. A low-cost unit far from transport links and job hubs may satisfy affordability on paper but fail residents in real life.

Global lessons offer a way forward. Singapore’s Housing Development Board integrates social infrastructure such as schools, clinics, green spaces, and transit. Vienna’s municipal housing system prioritises accessibility and design.

Medellín’s urban renewal includes mobility, safety, and participatory planning.

Kenya does not need to replicate these models, but the housing policy must prioritise dignity, not just density. This means seeing homes not just as real estate assets, but as instruments of social equity and economic inclusion.

There are encouraging signs. Public-private partnerships are exploring mixed-use precincts, tenant purchase schemes, and longer-tenure mortgage models. Climate-resilient design is gaining traction.

Peri-urban cooperatives are pioneering flexible tenure. But these initiatives are scattered and lack the coherence of a unified national framework. Kenya urgently needs a clearer housing policy that defines both affordability and dignity.

Affordability should go beyond construction costs or monthly payments; it must include the total cost of living: transport, utilities, maintenance, and time. A unit that’s cheap to buy but expensive to live in isn’t truly affordable.

Location matters. Pushing low-income developments to remote outskirts, far from jobs, schools, and hospitals, only reinforces spatial inequality. New housing that is being undertaken by developers must be guided by proximity to employment zones and public transit, with an inclusive design that accommodates the elderly and people with disabilities.

Soft infrastructure also matters. Developers should be encouraged to integrate solar energy, open courtyards, local retail, childcare centres, and community spaces that turn homes into neighbourhoods.

What’s missing is a robust feedback loop. Too often, once a ribbon is cut, scrutiny ends.

The government must require post-occupancy evaluations measuring infrastructure reliability, resident satisfaction, turnover, and long-term maintenance. This will improve project outcomes and increase accountability.

Vulnerable populations

A deeper political economy is also at play. Poorly designed housing programmes can entrench inequality by pushing vulnerable populations to the margins.

But if done right, they can serve as powerful tools for redistribution and national cohesion.

Kenya’s ongoing urban transformation, marked by large-scale evictions and infrastructure upgrades, raises hard questions.

Without phased relocation, adequate compensation, and inclusive consultation, the social cost may outweigh the benefits. Community acceptance isn’t a courtesy; it’s a prerequisite for sustainable urban renewal.

The demographic urgency is clear. Over 75 per cent of Kenyans are under the age of 35. Urbanisation is accelerating. Housing intersects with jobs, health, safety, and mobility. The government’s target of 250,000 units annually is bold and necessary. But scale must not compromise standards.

Under pressure, developers may be tempted to shrink unit sizes, cut corners on materials, or build in undesirable locations. These risks are ticking boxes, not transforming lives. Private developers also have a responsibility.

Some projects, even in the formal sector, technically qualify as affordable, but ignore the lived realities of residents. Quality, accessibility, and community integration must be non-negotiable.

To avoid these pitfalls, dignity must be embedded in Kenya’s housing vision.

This means better inter-ministerial coordination—linking housing with infrastructure, education, health, and mobility. It means enforcing development standards, even when politically inconvenient. It means financing tools that are truly inclusive, not just well-branded.

The tools are available. The political mandate exists. The demographic trends demand urgency. What’s needed now is the discipline and leadership to ensure that Kenya’s housing revolution delivers more than just rooftops.

If we truly wish to transform lives, not just skylines, our housing policy must go beyond the brick. 

The writer is the Group Head of Marketing at Mi Vida Homes