**1. Introduction**

In recent times, sustainable urban development has been a major challenge confronting the African region generally. This situation is further exacerbated by Africa's rapid urbanization at an average rate of 3.3 per cent per annum between 2000-2005. A rapidly urbanizing region, projected estimates indicate that by 2025 approximately half of the African population will be urban (UN-Habitat, 2008/9). This outstanding demographic shift on the African continent, and particularly Eastern Africa, presents current and future challenges for urban and regional planning (Lwasa, 2008; Rakodi, 1997). Furthermore, according to the UN-Habitat State of the World's Cities Report, 2006/7, rapid urbanization in Africa has occurred in the absence of a stable economic base though recent economic experiences show averagely high GPD rates for various countries. With chronic poverty widely prevalent, urbanization and slum formation are inextricably linked (UN-Habitat, 2007). Compounding this situation current statistics indicate that slums grew at a rate of 4.53 per cent per annum while overall urban growth rates were 4.58 per cent in the same period (UN-Habitat, 2008/9) almost leveling the urban growth is thus synonym to slum growth.

Africa urbanism is increasingly characterized by endemic poverty levels, fragmentation of the formal economy, weak institutions, declining employment and non-existent or deteriorating service provision (Clarke, 1995; UN-Habitat, 2009). But African urbanism also presents unique positive aspects and processes of urban space definition, use and spatial development patterns in which individual ingenuity for survival innovatively utilizes urban space in a productive way. These two strands of African urbanism present opportunities but also have created daunting challenges for sustainable urban development. Sustainable urban development in Africa and East African which would ensure social service provision, sustainable economic development, housing delivery, good urban governance, guided spatial development and urban environmental management. More recently urban development is challenged by mitigation and adaptation to climate change (Lwasa, 2008; Rakodi, 1997). The urban sustainability question in East Africa will require well designed pathways for urban development. This also raises the critical question of whether existing theories, models and practices of urban development offer solutions to the development and planning needs in the African continent and Eastern Africa in particular (Lwasa, 2008; Akatch, 1995).

Reappraising Urban Planning and Urban Sustainability in East Africa 5

for urban development were largely transferred from Europe and overlaid on African traditional systems that were arguably unprepared for the new systems of housing, standards, public services and development control procedures that were characterized by top down approaches(Smyth, 2004, Shalaby, 2003, Ndura, 2006). Planning practice remains very similar to colonial administration bent on the legal approach. Urban planning in East Africa still follows approaches and practice that respond to substantive and process theory; positive and normative theories with various planning colloquiums such as centralized versus transformational planning systems(Bennett, 2003). On the other hand are the Global South theories, models and practices with a couple documented while many remain undocumented or systematically described(Ndura, 2006). This divide provides a very good basis for our understanding in the subsequent sections of the entry points for innovation in urban planning. Based on the theories outlined, planning practice in East Africa has largely been influenced by paradigms of Master Planning, Structure Planning and currently under test in some countries of the region is innovative planning (Valk, 2002, Simpson and Chapman, 1999). These paradigms have pursued planning in different ways; functional versus territorial planning; geographical and administrative area planning and time horizon

In Eastern Africa, urban planning is understood to refer to physical land use planning, consisting of three key elements: first, an overall framework, usually a master plan, second, a set of planning and building standards and regulations and third, a development control system (Clarke, 1995:3). The master planning approach remains the most dominant in the region. This situation has been attributed to a large extent to the nature of professional training, which is still undertaken within a context of strong architectural and civic design traditions underpinned by the political, social and cultural values of the North (Jenkins et al, 2007; El-Shakhs, 1997). Therefore, as Shalaby (2003) aptly noted, "urban development is very much a social process constructed by planners whose orientation is shaped by global North theory and or their own experiential knowledge, which does not necessarily fit with

Master plans depicted on a map state the desired form of an urban area at a future point in time when the plan is 'realised' (UN-Habitat, 2009:60). The master planning approach has been critiqued in the planning literature, and in practice replaced by processes and urban plans that are more flexible, strategic and action oriented. According to Jenkins et al; (2007:132), some of the major criticisms of the master planning approach, include the focus on the plan as a product rather than on its effects; the stress on spatial factors and land use compared to social; economic and environment issues, the less focus on rapidly changing forces which shape urban development; the failure to recognize the significance of spontaneous settlement and the practical issues involved; the norms and standards which are global north dominated; the inadequate consideration of critical issues of financial analysis; governance, political interests and the realities of urbanizing poverty. As observed by Clarke (1995:14-15), the net effect of the inadequacies of the traditional master planning approach is that the majority of urban growth has taken place outside the planning 'rules of the game' directly contributing to social and spatial maginalization or exclusion (UN-Habitat, 2009; Jenkins et al; 2007). Although it has received critique, the approach remains particularly strong

planning(Bennett, 2003).

the social problems and needs".

**3.1 The dominance of the master planning approach** 

This chapter critically assesses the role and impact of urban planning processes in Africa generally, and Eastern Africa in particular, with regard to addressing the scale and magnitude of current urbanization challenges. The chapter broadly outlines the global perspectives on urban planning followed by emergence and nature of urban planning in sub-Saharan Africa. An overview of urban planning instruments follows with emphasis on current approaches being applied and their possible impact addressing the daunting urbanization challenges confronting the region. The instruments are examined in context of current urban development experiences in East Africa critiquing the predominant master planning and structure planning approaches. Finally, the chapter outlines leverage points for innovative planning approaches for sustainable urban development and responsiveness to the urban realities of East Africa.

#### **2. Method and materials**

A compendium of studies have culminated into this synthesis of appraising urban planning in East Africa. Two extensive literature review studies have examined the experiences of planning in general and urban planning in particular conducted in respect to cities in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. The review was conducted between 2006 and 2009 parts of which have been published in the UN-Habitat Report on Planning for Sustainable Cities and several other papers. These studies have focused on the theoretical underpinnings of urban planning comparing the theories and models to the current urban imprint while examining the alignment between the global north models of urban development and the existential spatial structure of cities in East Africa. The Master Planning and Structure Planning approaches are examined in view of urban realities in the region. Urban development models at city-wide to neighborhood scales are also examined in the review to identify divergences and convergences of global north and global south experiences focused on East Africa, the results of which is the synthesis in this chapter. Three additional studies have been conducted in the cities of Nairobi and Kampala at various scales from neighborhood to city-wide levels delving into issues of the current urban imprint, the role of urban planning (*including planning by inaction*) in creating the imprint and what leverage points can be harnessed for urban planning innovation. The latter have extended debates on various substantive planning issues, which are covered in the later sections of the chapter. The three thematic studies include the Making the Edible Landscape, Urban Planning Reality Studio and the Innovative Urban Planning Project. Ranging from two to three years of study, the projects deployed multi-faceted methods including participatory learning and action, service learning methods bringing various stakeholders to working together in identifying scalable and practical solutions to locale specific urban issues. The knowledge from these studies is the basis of this synthesis of appraising urban planning approaches. The synthesis links neighborhood level experiences to city-wide realities and potentials. The systemic failures of 'traditional' planning approaches are identified which are the springboard to identifying leverage points for innovative planning that takes into account urban realities in the region.

#### **3. Urban planning a global perspective**

Globally urban planning can be historically traced in northern Europe before it was spread to other regions including Africa. On the advent of planning in Africa, theory and models

This chapter critically assesses the role and impact of urban planning processes in Africa generally, and Eastern Africa in particular, with regard to addressing the scale and magnitude of current urbanization challenges. The chapter broadly outlines the global perspectives on urban planning followed by emergence and nature of urban planning in sub-Saharan Africa. An overview of urban planning instruments follows with emphasis on current approaches being applied and their possible impact addressing the daunting urbanization challenges confronting the region. The instruments are examined in context of current urban development experiences in East Africa critiquing the predominant master planning and structure planning approaches. Finally, the chapter outlines leverage points for innovative planning approaches for sustainable urban development and responsiveness

A compendium of studies have culminated into this synthesis of appraising urban planning in East Africa. Two extensive literature review studies have examined the experiences of planning in general and urban planning in particular conducted in respect to cities in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. The review was conducted between 2006 and 2009 parts of which have been published in the UN-Habitat Report on Planning for Sustainable Cities and several other papers. These studies have focused on the theoretical underpinnings of urban planning comparing the theories and models to the current urban imprint while examining the alignment between the global north models of urban development and the existential spatial structure of cities in East Africa. The Master Planning and Structure Planning approaches are examined in view of urban realities in the region. Urban development models at city-wide to neighborhood scales are also examined in the review to identify divergences and convergences of global north and global south experiences focused on East Africa, the results of which is the synthesis in this chapter. Three additional studies have been conducted in the cities of Nairobi and Kampala at various scales from neighborhood to city-wide levels delving into issues of the current urban imprint, the role of urban planning (*including planning by inaction*) in creating the imprint and what leverage points can be harnessed for urban planning innovation. The latter have extended debates on various substantive planning issues, which are covered in the later sections of the chapter. The three thematic studies include the Making the Edible Landscape, Urban Planning Reality Studio and the Innovative Urban Planning Project. Ranging from two to three years of study, the projects deployed multi-faceted methods including participatory learning and action, service learning methods bringing various stakeholders to working together in identifying scalable and practical solutions to locale specific urban issues. The knowledge from these studies is the basis of this synthesis of appraising urban planning approaches. The synthesis links neighborhood level experiences to city-wide realities and potentials. The systemic failures of 'traditional' planning approaches are identified which are the springboard to identifying leverage points for innovative planning that takes into account urban realities in

Globally urban planning can be historically traced in northern Europe before it was spread to other regions including Africa. On the advent of planning in Africa, theory and models

to the urban realities of East Africa.

**2. Method and materials** 

the region.

**3. Urban planning a global perspective** 

for urban development were largely transferred from Europe and overlaid on African traditional systems that were arguably unprepared for the new systems of housing, standards, public services and development control procedures that were characterized by top down approaches(Smyth, 2004, Shalaby, 2003, Ndura, 2006). Planning practice remains very similar to colonial administration bent on the legal approach. Urban planning in East Africa still follows approaches and practice that respond to substantive and process theory; positive and normative theories with various planning colloquiums such as centralized versus transformational planning systems(Bennett, 2003). On the other hand are the Global South theories, models and practices with a couple documented while many remain undocumented or systematically described(Ndura, 2006). This divide provides a very good basis for our understanding in the subsequent sections of the entry points for innovation in urban planning. Based on the theories outlined, planning practice in East Africa has largely been influenced by paradigms of Master Planning, Structure Planning and currently under test in some countries of the region is innovative planning (Valk, 2002, Simpson and Chapman, 1999). These paradigms have pursued planning in different ways; functional versus territorial planning; geographical and administrative area planning and time horizon planning(Bennett, 2003).

#### **3.1 The dominance of the master planning approach**

In Eastern Africa, urban planning is understood to refer to physical land use planning, consisting of three key elements: first, an overall framework, usually a master plan, second, a set of planning and building standards and regulations and third, a development control system (Clarke, 1995:3). The master planning approach remains the most dominant in the region. This situation has been attributed to a large extent to the nature of professional training, which is still undertaken within a context of strong architectural and civic design traditions underpinned by the political, social and cultural values of the North (Jenkins et al, 2007; El-Shakhs, 1997). Therefore, as Shalaby (2003) aptly noted, "urban development is very much a social process constructed by planners whose orientation is shaped by global North theory and or their own experiential knowledge, which does not necessarily fit with the social problems and needs".

Master plans depicted on a map state the desired form of an urban area at a future point in time when the plan is 'realised' (UN-Habitat, 2009:60). The master planning approach has been critiqued in the planning literature, and in practice replaced by processes and urban plans that are more flexible, strategic and action oriented. According to Jenkins et al; (2007:132), some of the major criticisms of the master planning approach, include the focus on the plan as a product rather than on its effects; the stress on spatial factors and land use compared to social; economic and environment issues, the less focus on rapidly changing forces which shape urban development; the failure to recognize the significance of spontaneous settlement and the practical issues involved; the norms and standards which are global north dominated; the inadequate consideration of critical issues of financial analysis; governance, political interests and the realities of urbanizing poverty. As observed by Clarke (1995:14-15), the net effect of the inadequacies of the traditional master planning approach is that the majority of urban growth has taken place outside the planning 'rules of the game' directly contributing to social and spatial maginalization or exclusion (UN-Habitat, 2009; Jenkins et al; 2007). Although it has received critique, the approach remains particularly strong

Reappraising Urban Planning and Urban Sustainability in East Africa 7

Looking at these experiences, then a question can be posed as to whether global north influenced planning and practice is relevant for 21st Century urbanization in sub-Saharan Africa? Whereas the intention is not to disqualify its relevance, it is of critical importance that entry points are identified for renewed and innovative planning that is responsive to societal needs in the context of African urbanism. The subsequent sections will endeavor to provide some pointers to this question and raise some of the much needed changes in

Pre-colonial settlement and urbanization is recognized in literature but in Eastern Africa, urbanization is largely viewed as part of European colonization. Urban planning processes are also inextricably linked to European town planning practices. In particular, it should be noted that British colonial rule profoundly influenced the nature of urban development in East Africa especially from the late nineteenth century until independence. As Akatch (1995:42) points out, the African region provided ideal experimental grounds for new colonial centers with urban planning processes literally exported as part of the cultural baggage of imperialism. Indeed, as aptly stated in the UN-Habitat Global Human Settlements Report, (2009:60), "frequently, these imported ideas were used for reasons of political, ethnic or racial domination and exclusion rather than in the interests of good planning systems". Thus the current planning systems and urban imprints are largely a legacy of colonial planning practice manifest in a physical sense through the segregated

Furthermore, there are also strong connections in terms of planning legislation, institutional structures and administrative processes (Okpala, 1987). In this regard, town planning legislation for many countries in the region, for example, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Zambia has its roots directly in British town planning laws and was transported without modification to the new situation, irrespective of the different circumstances prevailing in the recipient country (Akatch, 1994). However, as Kanyeihamba (1973:243) argues, the adoption of transported legislation was a recipe for failure for a variety of reasons related to different political, cultural, social and economic conditions prevailing in the recipient countries. This situation was further compounded by the dire shortage of specialized manpower experienced

Following the attainment of political independence, very little attempt was made by the new African governments to change the urban functions of the towns and cities, which were inherited from colonial governments (Akatch, 1995). This notwithstanding, rapid urbanization was perhaps the most dramatic social phenomena that marked the end of the colonial era in Africa. From a situation in 1950 in which the total population was no more than 28 million, the figure had by 1984 jumped to well over 125 million (Mabogunje, 1990). Consequently, according to Jenkins et al (2007:115-117), planning activities in colonial Africa undertaken under the influence of western planning institutions left a mixed legacy comprising often contradicting processes and policies. These include a new 'tidal wave' of urban growth, exclusive land policies, a public sector expected to offer solutions to the pressures of urban growth, financial and technical capital inadequacies, segregation and

during the colonial period, which still prevails to date in the region.

theory, policy and practice around which planning innovations are needed.

**4. Urban planning in the Global South** 

residential quarters (Jenkins et al; 2007).

social differentiation.

in majority of African countries with a general reluctance to reform the systems giving rise to organic approaches and interventions by the various stakeholders in the cities.

In a similar vein the much promoted flexible instruments including the 'Structure Planning approach has also faced problems and critique. Structure planning addresses a broader range of social, economic and physical development thereby enabling a more flexible base for the preparation of local plans (Jenkins et al; 2007; Akatch, 1995). On the other hand, action planning is an implementation-oriented approach to solving problems at a local level with community participation as a key to success and using local adaptation of experiences from other contexts effectively translating to a "learning by doing" approach (Clarke, 1995; Nigel, 1998; Hopkins, 2001). Despite recognizing the stakeholders, in principle enabling participation and flexibility around changing envisaged future structures of the city or neighborhood, this approach has not substantively addressed the issues around governance political interests and multi-stakeholder engagement. Therefore, part of the failure of urban planning instruments in Africa generally is attributed to their conceptual and contextual weaknesses to align with African environment and difficulties arising from the complex and dynamic interplay between global, national and political economy in which urban planning has to be undertaken in the region (Akatch, 1995; Mabogunje, 1990). Consequently, an important lesson learnt from the failure of the approaches in Africa generally is the inherent danger of transplanting planning systems and approaches from one context to another given the highly varied nature of urban societies globally. In addition, urban planning is still perceived as a specialist and technical activity, the exclusive preserve of skilled and commonly foreign trained segment of the professionals and or foreign consultant (Akatch, 1995; UN-Habitat, 2009).

Despite the rich theory and approaches, the question is whether the outputs and means of achieving elaborated plans have translated into spatial-social changes in cities of East Africa. An additional question is whether envisaged outcomes of the plans correspond or fit with the societal values, needs and aspirations? As noted by (Diaw et al., 2002), planners have been equipped with sufficient skills and knowledge necessary for responding to the planning needs but this has largely remained for plan outputs and less to implementation of the outputs. Several research, evaluation and commentaries have presented the successes and failure of planning in the Global South(Mukwaya, 2001, Goodfellow, 2010, DPU, 2004, Arimah et al., 2009). From Orangi project in Karachi to Lima and Bogota, Lagos and Nairobi, literature shows fewer successes of planning which has been largely dominated with Global North theories and models (Egbu et al., 2006). Literature shows that adapting the theories and approaches to locale specific realities has a potential for transformative urban development. From the Orangi Project for example, experiences show that local human capacities and resources can create a spin to urban development that is parallel to the topdown approaches though community participation is plagued by challenges of scalability. The inability of spatial plans to subsequently realize societal goals, to deal with housing problems, poverty, urban services, urban environment and enhancement of urban governance is evident in most of the cities of sub-Saharan Africa(Jain, 2003). While efforts and sectoral initiatives by development agencies, UN organizations spearheaded by UN-Habitat, Civil Society Organizations and Governments are also yielding less than the badly needed results of planning (Jain, 2003). Planning and its outputs or outcomes in this context can then be looked at as a distinctive fusion of Global North and or Global South practices. Looking at these experiences, then a question can be posed as to whether global north influenced planning and practice is relevant for 21st Century urbanization in sub-Saharan Africa? Whereas the intention is not to disqualify its relevance, it is of critical importance that entry points are identified for renewed and innovative planning that is responsive to societal needs in the context of African urbanism. The subsequent sections will endeavor to provide some pointers to this question and raise some of the much needed changes in theory, policy and practice around which planning innovations are needed.
