Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/282860107
CITATIONS READS
0 11,901
1 author:
Ashna S. Mathema
World Bank
18 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ashna S. Mathema on 15 October 2015.
Background Paper
This paper has been prepared by Ashna Mathema under the supervision of Sumila
Gulyani, with funding from the Danish Trust Fund. Please send comments to
amathema@worldbank.org and sgulyani@worldbank.org.
Acknowledgements
We thank the following for their support in the preparation of this paper: Ato Gutema Bulcha,
Ato Tsegai Ghebrezghi, and all members of the UDCBO; Ato Abebe Kebede, Ato Sisaye Dejene,
and Ato Negga from the MOF; Ilias Dirie from Cities Alliance/ UN-Habitat; and Abebaw
Alemayehu and Kate Owens from the World Bank.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Table of Contents
Introduction ………………………………………………………………... 1
Bibliography ……………………………………………………………….. 33
ANNEX A HOUSEHOLD PROFILES ……………………………………………….. 37
ANNEX B PHOTOS OF MEZZANINES IN KEBELE HOUSES …………………. 56
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 1
Introduction
Methodology
As the first phase of this study, a 3-week field trip to Addis Ababa was conducted in July 2004
to gather first-hand information on the land and housing sector. Intensive research was carried
out which included:
Case studies of low-income households. These case studies were carried out in select settlements to
get an insight into living conditions at the household level in two types of housing, kebele and
illegal housing. These case studies were based on a small stratified sample that constituted
households from different income brackets and housing typologies, and included in-depth
structured interviews of the households.
It must be emphasized that the total number of cases is small, and does not lead to any
statistically significant quantitative information. Rather, the intent here is to present
comprehensive qualitative information regarding the target beneficiary group which can inform
the design of future housing policy and programs.
The settlements where these interviews were carried out include Kebele 11, Teklemenot (kebeles 9
and 10), Ayertena (kebele 5), and Yerer (kebele 19).
Interviews with the relevant agencies and officials. These were unstructured discussions to get an
overview of the approaches being used for housing delivery by the different agencies involved.
Interviewees included officials in several departments of the Addis Ababa City Administration
(Housing Agency Manager, Planning Commissioner, Environment Development Office
Director), sub-city offices (Subcity Managers of Kirkos and Arada, and Eco City Planning Team
Members of the two subcities), as well as representatives from CBOs and NGOs (IHAUDP /
Sister Jemba / CIBISDO, Care, Concern / Self-Help Association), and GTZ. Discussions were
also held with officials from the Ministry of Federal Affairs’ Land and Housing Division on
technical issues pertaining to housing and institutional constraints they face in developing a
holistic approach to housing delivery.
Site visits to housing projects. This included field visits to a recently completed pilot
condominium project (funded by the Addis Ababa City Administration and being built be GTZ)
to assess its feasibility, as well as completed sites and services projects to identify best practices
and lessons learned.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 2
Desktop study. This involved research of recent documents and research being carried out by
Addis Ababa City Administration (AACA), as well as donors, including the World Bank, UN-
Habitat, and Cities Alliance. International best practices and planning tools were also identified
that might provide lessons for Ethiopia’s housing sector.
A 3-week field trip is tentatively scheduled for late-October/ early November, 2004. The timing
has been planned so it coincides with, and provides input for the planned housing workshop in
November.
During this mission, in-depth case studies will be carried out in communities in Addis that have
benefited from upgrading programs. Experiences of EDO and NGOs/CBOs with upgrading,
and the beneficiaries’ perspective will be documented to: (i) analyze what has worked better in
certain settlements than others, and why; (ii) identify the impediments to upgrading; and (iii)
make recommendations as to how these impediments can be addressed in the short-, medium-,
and long-term.
Inputs from both phases of the study will be included in the Final Report.
Chapter Outline
Sections I and II provide an overview of the housing situation in Addis, including the prevalent
housing typologies, the underlying problems, and the existing institutional framework for
housing and infrastructure delivery. Section III analyzes the various housing programs being
implemented within the current framework, including upgrading, tenure security, as well as
new housing construction being undertaken by the government to address the housing
shortage. Finally, Section IV concludes with a discussion regarding the implications of these
programs. Case examples are presented in boxes throughout the report to illustrate specific
issues.
Detailed recommendations with respect to land and housing delivery are presented in a
separate paper titled “Improving the Delivery of Housing and Land in Addis Ababa An Analytical
Overview and Recommendations” (draft of September 15, 2004) prepared by the housing team at
Water and Urban/ Africa division at the World Bank.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 3
SECTION I
EXISTING HOUSING SITUATION IN ADDIS
1.1 Introduction
It is now nearly a decade since Ethiopia’s “real” democracy came into being.1 But even today,
the country continues to grapple with the lingering after-effects of three decades of fighting
(wars with Somalia, Eritrea, internal rebellions and conflicts), the repressive and militaristic
policies of the Dergue regime in the 1970s and 80s, as well as recurrent famines. 2,3 These events
have had a devastating impact on the economy and its people, and the government is now
faced with an extremely challenging situation, with the vast majority of its population living in
extremely substandard conditions.
Addis Ababa is the largest city in Ethiopia with a population of nearly 2.6 million people. This
urban agglomeration gains more prominence in the context that Addis’ population is 13 times
that of Dire Dawa, the next largest city with some 230,000 inhabitants. In addition to being the
nation’s economic4 and political capital, it is also the “diplomatic capital” of Africa, housing the
UNECA and African Union headquarters. Yet, despite its economic and political importance in
the country and the region, Addis is faced with more than its fair share of problems.
1
Ethiopia became a “People’s Democratic Republic” in 1987, although only in name. All the candidates were
nominated by the Dergue. But it was not until 1994, three years after the Dergue downfall in 1991, that the transitional
government made the first move to establish a true democracy. In 1994, a federal constitution was implemented that
divided the country into 11 electoral regions, with proportional representation in the central government. At that time,
regional governments were established under a progressive decentralized system of governance.
2
The militaristic and authoritative Dergue regime ruled Ethiopia from 1974 to 1991 and promoted socialist principles,
but its draconian laws and regressive policies exacerbated the social and economic inequity. A series of radical
policies were implemented by the Dergue regime, among them the Land Reform Bill of March 1975 that outlawed
private land ownership and allowed for the formation of collective land use under local Kebele councils. It was during
this time that there were wars with Somalia and Eritrea, then a part of Ethiopia. Even later, after the independence of
Eritrea in 1993, problems persisted, leading to a full-fledged war with its neighbor lasting nearly 3 years from 1998-
2000.
3
Ethiopia came into the world spotlight in 1985 when the country was struck by one of the most devastating famines
in living memory. The natural disaster was exacerbated by politics with the western countries initial refusal to provide
assistance to a “socialist” country, and later when the help came, it was faced with an unwillingness on part of the
government to send aid to areas that were the worst affected. One million people died.
4
Eighty-five percent of the federal revenue comes from Addis. (Source: ORAAMP Planning Commissioner, in a
meeting on July 27, 2004.)
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 4
Based on this secondary data, nearly a third (30 percent) of the labor force is unemployed; three-
fourths of the city has a monthly household income of less than 670 Birr (roughly US$80), while
50 percent of Addis’ households is survives on less than 340 Birr (roughly US$40) per month
(see Table 1).
The lack of adequate shelter and infrastructure for the poor majority has manifested itself in
congested and unhygienic living conditions in most low-income settlements across Addis.
According to the Planning Commissioner, Office for the Revision of Addis Ababa Master Plan
(ORAAMP), housing is a “high priority” for the City, for several reasons:
- Of the roughly 150,000 kebele housing units in Addis today, 70-80 percent will cease to exist
in 20 years’ time due to their poor quality of construction.
- 97 percent of the kebele houses are row houses, or single-story structures, implying “low
densities and underutilization of many of the city’s prime locations suitable for private
investment.”
- Ethiopia’s concept of legal titles to property so far has been limited to land.5 There have
never been titles for the housing unit per se: de facto ownership of a housing structure exists,
but there is no formal title to the built property, which is one reason why banks and lending
agencies have so far been unwilling to accept the “house” as collateral for a loan.
According to the Addis Ababa City Development Plan, “an estimated 60 percent of the city’s
core is dilapidated, and about a quarter of all housing units have been built informally. The City
is not able to provide adequate services to the extension areas thus discouraging house
construction and contributing to the expansion of slums.”6 Roughly 40,000 “titled” plots with
completed houses are currently lying vacant because of their inability to get services extended
to their plots.
5
There was a titling system in place prior to nationalization of land during the Dergue regime.
6
“Addis Ababa in Action: Progress Through Partnership, City Development Plan 2001-2010”, Addis Ababa City
Government, Works and Development Bureau, ORAAMP, (2002?)
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 5
As a result, today Addis faces a housing backlog of roughly 300,000 units, which is growing at
an annual rate of 30,000.7 Table 2 presents the projected housing need from 2000 to 2010. By the
year 2010, the need for additional new housing will be 482,000 if no remedial action is taken.
The Addis City administration is committed to address the housing crisis and improving the
physical, social and economic aspects of the city. Many best practices and regional/ local
success stories are being explored and applied. These include:
Given the gravity of the situation, the tendency is expectedly to opt for visible, quick-fix
approaches to address the housing crisis. The “urban renewal” approach involves large scale
demolition of existing areas and re-housing people into high- and medium-rise condominium
units, as a means to achieve higher population densities, and make land available for private
investment. To quote the Mayor of Addis Ababa from the Fortune, (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, July
18, 2004):
7
Source: Manager, Housing Agency, City of Addis in a meeting on July 28, 2004. Also in “Fortune, Addis Ababa”,
July 18, 2004.
8
Edirs are community associations that function like savings schemes (for funerals). They play a pivotal role in
society, and are being increasingly seen as a resource from where community funds may be mobilized for physical
improvement programs.
9
Based on a meeting with GTZ representatives on July 26, 2004.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 6
“Old houses will be demolished and new houses will be built in selected pockets to embellish the
appearance of the city. They will be replaced by apartments of three and four storeys that could fit
the status of Addis Abeba.”
With this construction of housing, the government hopes to “not only to provide shelter to the
low-income residents of the city, but also help generate employment to the tens of thousands of
young people graduating from the vocational schools.”10
Ethiopia presents an interesting variation from many other developing countries where housing
is characterized by a clear correlation between “illegality” and “informality”. In Addis, on one
hand, we have a large segment of the informal settlements that is “illegal”, but not all these
illegal houses are substandard. In fact a large percentage of these houses are well-planned and
serviced. On the other hand, many of the “legal” settlements in the city constitute what one
would term “informal” housing, which is seriously deficient in terms of basic services. These
are the government- or kebele-owned houses.
In Ethiopia, the term “informal housing” typically refers to illegal housing, not the kebele-
housing. This is despite the fact that, unlike a majority of the illegal settlements, the latter does
not conform to the legal building standards. In this paper, however, we use the conventional
definition of informal housing, i.e., housing that is either “illegal” in terms of tenure or not in
conformity with building standards, land use or zoning bylaws. Using this as the basis, the
housing in Addis is categorized into four types, illustrated in the matrix in Figure 1.
As shown in Table 3, formal sector housing comprises the largest percentage of housing stock in
Addis – 298,000 units or 47 percent. Kebele housing is about a fourth, and illegal settlements
roughly 30 percent of the total stock. The slums, per the definition provided above, are
essentially “illegal”, and scattered within the kebele and illegal settlements.
2 Kebele rental housing 150,000 23.4 World Bank (2004) – GOE official estimate
3 Illegal housing (organized) 132,000 20.6 Estimated from percentage (30%) of illegal
housing given in Structure Plan
4 Slums (disorganized illegal) 60,000 9.4
TOTAL 640,000 100
10
Fortune, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, July 18, 2004.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 7
YES
- Private cooperatives (legal
entities) housing
- Private individuals
- Rental housing (incl. RHA)
The following section presents each of these housing types in more detail. Categories 3 and 4
are combined under the discussion of “Illegal” Settlements.
Private developers: Private sector real estate developers have so far played a limited role in the
housing sector. There are only four major developers active in the City, and all their projects
target the upper-income households. In a recent development, Logo Plc., an Italian Ethiopian
and English investment, began negotiations with AACA for the acquisition of land for the
construction of 4,000 new apartments.11
Government housing: This comprises housing for government employees and constitutes about
34 percent of the formal housing stock, which includes roughly 16,000 rental housing units
managed by the Rental Housing Authority (RHA).12 These are mostly units acquired by the
government during nationalization, which had rents above 100 Birr per month.
Low-cost housing by the City of Addis: This involves the construction of low-cost condominium
housing, and is a new concept being promoted by the AACA in its efforts to address the
housing crisis. A pilot project of 700 units costing 36 million Birr was completed in July 2004,
and the government is planning to scale up its efforts in this direction. The aim is multi-faceted:
- to speed up supply of low-cost housing for the poor
- to densify and “renew” prime urban land
- to boost the building/ construction industry, and pump cash into the economy by
generating employment opportunities for the poor.
Being a relatively new approach in Ethiopia, it does not currently constitute a significant
percentage of the housing stock. But the government has set a target of building 20,000-30,000
new condominium units in Addis annually to meet the housing shortage. The target for 2004 is
10,000 units; this will be scaled up in 2005 to 20,000 for an appropriated budget of 1.2 billion Birr
(28.5 percent of the annual city budget of 4.2 billion Birr), and then possibly to 30,000 units in
the following years (up till 2009). The national government is contributing 100 million Birr to
the City of Addis for FY 2004-05 for the first time, to support this large scale housing sector
undertaking.
Private Housing Cooperatives: Housing cooperatives are the primary mode of housing
construction in Addis, constituting over half of the city’s total formal sector housing stock. Co-
operatives in Ethiopia, similar to many other countries, are formed by groups of people who
come together as an entity to perform the function of a “developer”. In the absence of an active
private sector presence in real estate development, the cooperatives are clearly filling in the gap.
They are recognized as legal entities by the government, and allocated land upon which to
design and construct the development (residential for most part).
Land is leased to interested buyers at land auctions held by the city government. According to
City officials, roughly 2,00013 parcels of land are allocated annually. Housing loans to
cooperatives are extended by the Construction and Business Bank (CBB) at an annual interest
rate of 4.5 percent.14 In addition, there is a requirement of depositing part of the construction
11
Capital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, July 18, 2004.
12
Proclamation 47/1975 by the Dergue regime placed under kebele administration all those units with rents less than
100 Birr per month; those over 100 Birr per month were placed under the control of the RHA.
13
Need to check
14
The Construction and Business Bank is the only bank in Ethiopia involved in housing finance, and constitutes just
about 7 percent of the banking business in Ethiopia (according to 2000 figures). Of this meager portfolio, less than 30
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 9
cost upfront into “closed” accounts. This, in essence, serves as a security deposit to prove that
the buyer has enough funds for construction of the housing. The underlying objective of this
regulation is to check speculation. However, this is a serious impediment for low-income
groups to establish housing cooperatives since such large sums are not available in advance to
be locked away in a “closed” account.15 This is evident from the fact that nearly all of the 1,032
“legal” cooperatives (with some 20,759 members/ households) established between 1998 and
2001 are from the middle- and upper-income groups.
Individual housing construction: Individuals may acquire land from the government for housing
construction the same way as cooperatives. However, interest rates for individual buyers are
higher, at 7 percent.
In summary, the low income groups are excluded from all the channels for formal housing:
by private sector developers for risk of poor cost recovery and/or low profitability, by the
housing cooperative mechanism due to the requirement of “closed accounts”, and as
individuals due to the higher interest rate for housing loans.
Kebele housing was a direct consequence of the Land Reform Bill of March 1975 passed during
the Dergue regime. This Bill outlawed private land ownership, in favor of collective use of land
under local Kebele Councils. Housing was nationalized, and all “surplus” houses, i.e. all houses
other than those being used as primary residences by the owners were acquired by the
government. This placed all those units with rents less than 100 Birr per month under kebele
administration, and those with higher rents under the control of the RHA. Rents for the poorest
families were subsidized, often by as much as 50 percent, and were kept frozen over the years.
The underlying principle was to subsidize housing for the poor, and promote home ownership.
Instead, what happened was quite the opposite: rental housing—that typically serves as an
adjustment between housing demand and supply—ceased to grow, land and housing markets
got distorted, and the poor condition of kebele housing steadily declined.
Today, nearly three decades since the nationalization, these houses are inhabited by over
150,000 families. This translates into roughly 850,000 residents based on the average household
size of 5.64 (World Bank Poverty Assessment, 2004). In fact, this figure might be significantly
higher because low income families typically have larger families, as was observed during our
field visit.16 Hence, kebele housing constitutes a significant portion of the “affordable” housing
stock of the city.
percent of the lending goes to residential construction. Other banks are unwilling to participate in mortgage lending
for various reasons including lack of experience, profitability and incentives.
15
Structure Plan: Housing Component, ORAAMP, 2001, citing information from the Cooperatives Promotion Bureau.
16
Family size observed during our field visits ranged typically between 5 and 10 members, with an average of 6.8
(discussed later under Section 1.5).
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 10
A typical kebele house may be described as a single room, 3-4 meters wide and 4-5 meters long,
accommodating anywhere between 5-10 people. The large majority is made of traditional chika
construction – using mud and wood or straw. Sanitation and hygiene in these settlements is
extremely poor: some households have access to communal toilets, others defecate in the open.
Household chores—grinding, drying spices, laundry—are done in the street or in the small
common open spaces outside the houses. The majority of households use communal kitchens
to bake the injera bread. Drainage and garbage disposal systems are typically non-existent,
except in neighborhoods have benefited from past or on-going upgrading efforts. Many
settlements have benefited from NGO programs that have installed communal (in some cases,
even individual) water points.
Rents from these houses are very low, ranging from 2-100 Birr per month. Based on discussions
with the residents and officials, it is believed that most rents are between 5 and 10 Birr.17 This
rent is not even enough to cover the maintenance of the houses, let alone serve as a source of
revenue for the city. Yet, despite the inherent subsidy, most of the people are not paying their
rents. This is partly due to the inefficient collection systems in place, but also because of the
common perception among residents that housing is a “social” good, and the poor must not be
required to pay for it.
The kebele councils, for fear of heightening compensation liabilities, do not permit the residents
to make substantial renovations to the houses. “Allowable” changes include only basic
maintenance of the structure, or upgrading the building material; the floor plan of the original
house must be adhered to. Occasionally exceptions are made. Similarly, new construction is not
permitted on an empty lot or abandoned house, except for building communal toilets and
kitchens. The implication is that even if a plot has additional space to build an additional room,
or add a personal toilet or a kitchen, this is not permitted by law.
Interviews with some CBOs working on housing and/or maintenance revealed that even
though they had generated sufficient funds (from community contributions and NGO/ donor
support), they had been unable to carry out any substantial improvements to the houses, due to
the legal constraints. This is despite the fact that the money to rebuild would come from the
community funds, not the government, and that the house would still, by all legal standards,
belong to the government.
Occupants, on their part, do not engage in improvements of their homes based due to lack of
incentive or resources, but mostly for fear that rents would be increased if the houses were
improved.
Scattered randomly in these settlements are also some privately-owned houses. These are
typically larger, with better structures, and easily distinguishable from the kebele houses, owned
mostly by middle-income households. Most of these were previously chika structures; the
families, over the years, have been able to leverage their savings to improve their houses. After
the fall of the Dergue regime, many of these private house owners built additional units (rooms)
for rental purposes. Additional income from rent is quit substantial: a unit with space
17
To put this in context, a similar unit rented from a private owner would fetch a rent of 100-150 Birr per month. The
same applies to registered commercial property owned by the kebele.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 11
equivalent to a kebele house, and in the same locality can fetch rents up to 150 Birr per month,
nearly 30 times the rent for a kebele house.18 Similarly, a typical private house within a kebele
settlement can easily be valued between 200,000 and 300,000 Birr. In contrast, a typical kebele
house (a 1-room mud structure) has no defined market value other than its cost of construction,
which ranges between 7,000 and 9,000 Birr. 19
Kebele 11 in Kirkos subcity and Kebeles 9 and 10 in Teklemenot were studied in detail to provide
Box 1. KEBELE HOUSING in Teklemenhot- Kebeles 9 and 10, Lideta Subcity
(findings from site visit on July 15, 2004)
General: The area covered in our site visit includes 2 kebeles—09 and 10—organized under a CBO called CBISDO
(Community Based Integrated Sustainable Development Organization), founded by Sister Jembo in 1998. Based on discussion
with the CIBISDO Manager,
- 75 percent of HHs are women headed (abandoned or widowed mostly)
- average family size reported: 6
- AIDS incidence – “very high” (no number quoted for fear of stigma, but reportedly more significant than other urban poor
settlements in Addis). There are about 200 AIDS orphans, and 1 in 6 people are said to be HIV-positive.
- Rents range from 1-20 Bir per month. Typical rent is 1-2 Birr. This is to be collected by the kebele, but is not.
The Settlement Layout:The layout of the settlement appears fairly well organized. The kebele/ EDO provided assistance in
upgrading, as a result of which there are good access roads—pedestrian and motorable—and lined drains. In general, it looks
impressive. Houses, built with traditional materials (single storey, made of mud and straw – chika construction), are well laid out
and cared for. The streets essentially define the life of the settlement: small shops opening into the streets; children playing,
women conducting their household chores: grinding tef, drying corn, and figs for firewood, vending, etc.
18
Assuming an average kebele rent of 5 Birr per month.
19
Estimated comparative costs of construction using subsidized labor and minimum finishing:
Building Material Cost per sq.mt.
Chika 180
Hollow Block 600
Brick 1500
Masonry 2000
Source: Structure Plan: Housing Component (2001), ref. page 28.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 12
Healthcare. There is a government health center which provides free services to the poor. However, sometimes when
medicines are not available in the health center, people purchase them at the local pharmacy, for which they have to pay. For
specialized treatment, patients are referred to private clinics.
Recreation. No recreational facilities such as a sports field or community center are available. Children and youth play on the
streets.
Education. There is a government primary school in the vicinity, where tuition is free. Some of the poorer families are enrolled
in assistance programs that provide financial assistance to purchase the uniforms and books for the students.
Water Supply. After AAWASA disconnected the water supply in this kebele settlement as a result of non-payment of bills, an
NGO recently provided assistance in setting up a water supply system under an integrated development project. Most houses
have their individual connections with meters, some share standpipes. People are still to pay 50 Birr per connection for the
installation of these water taps. People spend in the range of 5-10 Birr for household water consumption per month.
Electricity. Electricity poles and overhead wires indicate that many of the households have electricity connections. In fact all the
houses we visited, even the poorest ones, had electricity, even if they were using it for just one light bulb and a radio. Electricity
bills range from 5-10 Birr for the poorer households and increase to the 30-40 Birr range for the more well-off families.
Solid Waste Management. No organized system of garbage disposal exists in this settlement. Some households carefully
dispose of their garbage in the government collection trucks, while others throw it in the street or the creek. There is some
evidence of organized daily door-to-door collection of garbage, whereby households pay to have their trash picked up and
disposed of by a local group.
Sanitation and Sewerage. This is clearly a serious problem in the settlement. Many of the communal pits are full, and many in
a poor condition. Several of the households do not even have access to a pit, and defecate in the open, or rely on their
neighbors’ facilities. Among our interviewees, even the best off kebele households did not have a pit. Only the private house
interviewed had a flush toilet with its own septic tank.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 13
Illegal settlements are typically found at the periphery of the city, in expansion areas, where
large tracts of vacant farm land are available. Those within the city constitute a small percentage
of the total, and are primarily a result of land invasions. Many of the residents in the peripheries
claim to have “purchased” land from farmers who subdivided and sold the residential plots
and farmland allocated to them by the government. A large percentage of these “illegal”
residents were previously living in “unaffordable” private rental housing in the city. They
would have rather lived in “cheap” kebele housing, except that it is very difficult to come by due
to the high demand.
“Purchase” of land—“land rights” rather—is done on the basis of an “agreement letter” in the
presence of several witnesses. The “buyers” recognize that this is not a legal document, but it
serves as “protection” against any conflicting claims to reside on the land by the seller or others.
Since the land actually belongs to the government, and the farmers who are using it are not
permitted to “sell” it, the language in the “agreement” is designed not to incriminate the seller,
and states simply the transfer of user rights to the buyer, not a title.
According to a document prepared by the Land Management Study Group in the Addis Ababa
Development and Improvement Office (2002), illegal settlements occupy roughly 2,000 Ha of
land in Addis, accounting for 4 percent of the city area and 7 percent of the built up area. Out of
a total of 94,135 housing units built in the city between 1984 and 1994, illegal settlements
constituted 15.7 percent (some 15,000 units).20 Today that number has grown to 30 percent of the
total, or 192,000 households.21
Our study include visits to two settlements organized by cooperatives: Brutesfa Cooperative, comprising 202 families, and
Salam Gannat self-help cooperative that was started in 1992 with 168 households. In both cases, land was purchased from
farmers at minimal price, and members of the cooperatives oversaw the development of a workable site plan with basic
infrastructure. Land was subdivided and “sold” to the members. Money collected from the members towards provision of
infrastructure was used for the development of both physical and social services. Interestingly, the plot sizes set by some
cooperatives have a clear match with the “acceptable” government-allocated plot of 165-175 sq.mt.
On the selling front, there are the farmers, who forced by their limited economic prospects from subsistence farming, are
“selling” their plots to these cooperatives, even individuals. Both sides recognize that the transaction is not “legal”, but still chose
to go ahead with it, in the hope that the government will one day legalize them.
20
PADCO report cited in the Structure Plan: Housing Component.
21
See Table 5: this includes both organized illegal households as well as those living in slums (Birr 132,000 +
60,000).
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 14
Illegal settlers include cooperatives and individuals. The cooperatives, although not legal
entities like those discussed under formal housing, perform similar functions, which include
acquiring land (typically through “purchase” from farmers and speculators hoarding large
tracts of land), planning the development, obtaining services, and financial management of
funds contributed by the members. The level of organization is impressive, as was observed in
Ayertena (see Box 3): the settlements have clear rights-of-way, drainage channels, standardized
plot sizes in the acceptable government range of 165-175 sq.mt, and often water and electricity
connections.
In clear contrast to the cooperatives, illegal settlers who come in as individuals are not as well
off or organized. As a result of individual and haphazard subdivisions, the settlement layout is
typically not as planned as that of the cooperatives. Over time, however, some of the better off
individuals have organized themselves into committees (as witnessed in Yerer—see Box 4), to
ensure better delivery of services to the residents. Still, there are many individuals who cannot
afford the burden of monthly membership fees for the committee. These are typically the worst
off in terms of access to services, and these constitute what we have termed “slums” in Figure 1.
According to a recent study on informal settlements in Addis, of the total 2,000 Ha of illegal
settlements, 1,655 Ha, or 83 percent of the area has access to water, electricity and roads. 22
Interestingly, the study also states that a large majority of the families—close to 95 percent23—
also pay land taxes. These high numbers may be attributed for most part to the cooperatives,
which could lead one to believe that cooperatives constitute a significant percentage of illegal
housing. However, information on their disaggregated percentages is unknown at this stage.
As in the previous section, we carried out household case studies of some of the residents of
these settlements—in Yerer and Ayertena—with farming and non-farming families, cooperative
members and individuals. Detailed profiles of these households are presented in Annex A.
22
“Study on Informal Settlements”, Land Management Study Group, Addis Ababa Development and Improvement
Office (2002?)
23
These numbers seem excessively high, and might need to be verified.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 15
Box 4. ILLEGAL SETTLEMENT in Yerer- Kebele 19, Bole Subcity, previously known as
“Bole Kotabey Peasant Association” (findings from site visit on July 22, 2004)
Kebele 19, like some other areas in the outskirts of Addis, formerly comprised mainly of farmers. Towards the end of the Dergue
regime, farmers scattered around the city were resettled here. Each farmer was allocated land for housing (1,000 sq.mt.),
farming (6 Ha per 3 family members) and cattle-grazing (10 Ha per 10 cattle), giving them “user rights” (not a title) for the land.
The increased unmet demand for housing in the Addis city center has made Yerer a perfect target for people looking for cheap
affordable housing. People migrating from rural areas, or those living in expensive private housing, unable to find cheap kebele
rental housing have found a suitable substitute in Yerer. According to the participants in our focus group discussion (comprising
7 participants including community members and leadership), 70 percent of the current “illegal” residents were previously living
in “expensive” private rental housing in the city.
The people have been told that those houses built in or after 2002 (no one seemed sure about the exact date) will be
demolished, while those constructed before will be given tenure. Prior to 2002, only the vacant houses were being demolished
by the government. Now any new “illegal” construction is demolished. The kebele officials, with their demolition squads, check
new unauthorized construction.
The kebele has no socio-economic data available. The Social Development Officer is primarily a keeper of information
pertaining to the issuance of trade licenses, providing letters for access to free hospitals, and demolition and control of new
illegal construction. According to the leadership, most people work locally, employed in most part by the “thriving” construction
industry in the area, for daily wages ranging between 8-10 Birr per day. The others include traders / merchants, and also public
servants (about 5 percent of the total).
According to our meeting participants, kebele 19 has about 700 households: 250 are families of farmers, while the others are
“illegal” settlers. Of the former, about 200 have been living here for over 30 years, while 52 were resettled here from other parts
of Addis with compensation in terms of land and money. Of the “illegal” residents, about 200 households are organized into 5
zonal development committees of about 40 members each, to facilitate better services and amenities for the people. These
households contribute 10 Birr per month towards the committee membership/expenses. The remaining 250 “illegal” households
are not organized into any group, and include those who cannot afford the monthly membership fee.
One resident among our focus group claimed to be paying property taxes to the kebele, which gives him the perception of being
a “legal” resident. We were told that 50 percent of the households, including farmers, were paying taxes. Many of those who are
not paying have applied to the kebele for property tax registration. These include families that could not initially afford to pay
taxes, but now want to pay to gain some sort of security of tenure. But the new regulation that deems construction after 2002
illegal also prohibits the acceptance of any new applications for property tax registration.
The farmers have been given land to stay here by the government. They want assistance with upgrading, and land tenure. They
are willing to reblock and take smaller plots, and to pay for this as long as it is affordable (in the range of 20-50 Birr per month).
The formal sector workers, mostly those that are members of the development committees, are willing to relocate into housing
provided by the government, even condominiums. The poorest among the community say they cannot afford to pay for land or
housing, and want upgrading assistance from the government. Table (i) provides an brief overview of the living conditions of the
participants.
Our field data, although not statistically significant, points to two interesting peculiarities that
cannot be overlooked while designing housing or any other programs for the poor.
One, it is highly likely that the size of low-income Box 5. Household Size in Case
households is higher than the average of 5.2 stated in the Study Settlements
census—either as a result of extended family, or more From a random set of 25 participants in
children and/or orphans. The average household size our community meeting in Keble 11, a
household size of 7 was observed, which
observed from our sample survey (with n=36) was 6.8 (see is 40 percent higher than the CSA figure
Table 5). of 5. As a result, the room occupancy
stands at 4.56 persons per room of
roughly 3x4 sqmt (not counting the
Room occupancy, as a result, was recorded the highest in private houses).
kebele housing, with an average of 5 persons per room. Similarly, in Yerer (kebele 19), the
Private and illegal housing had comparable occupancies of average household size of participants of
our group discussion was 7.25.
2.6-2.7 persons per room. The upper limit of acceptable
occupancy recommended by the UN is 2.4 persons per room.
Table 5. Household size and room occupancy using n=36, disaggregated by housing type
Overall (n=36) Kebele (n=22) illegal (n=10) private (n=4)
Persons/ Persons/ Persons/ Persons/
HH size room HH size room HH size room HH size room
median 6.0 3.4 6.0 5.0 6.5 2.7 6.0 2.3
mean 6.8 4.2 6.7 5.0 6.8 2.6 6.4 2.7
Two, the nature of poverty might in fact be more alarming than the census data suggests. An
example is the Eco City Plan for Kebele 21 in Kirkos sub-city which suggests that 75 percent of
the local population is living below the poverty line of 250 Birr per month. 24
24
Source: Kebele 21 Model Project: Final Socioeconomic Analysis and Project Proposal, Kirkos Sub City, cited from
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, 2003-04. The data gathered might need to be checked for accuracy.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 17
SECTION II
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Having provided a broad overview of the housing typologies, this section presents the various
mechanisms in place to facilitate housing delivery. These include the Structure Plan, the
Strategic Development Framework and Action Plans, Eco City Guides and Local Development
Plans.
Physical upgrading to improve the living environment is another key element geared toward
poverty reduction. According to the document, “NGOs and CBOs are to play the lead role in
improving infrastructure and service delivery. The government is to act as the facilitator.”
Developed at the kebele level under the administration of the Sub City Manager, they serve as a
guide for local development initiatives. Just as the Structure Plan provides the framework for
Addis city as a whole, these Eco City Guides provide the framework for development at the
kebele level. They are typically developed by a team comprising, at minimum, a sociologist, an
economist, and an architect/planner, who work closely with the Kefle Katema25 and
Neighborhood Development Committees in proposal development. Community participation is
considered a key part of the process. The idea is to use various community forums—focus
group discussions, key informant interviews, surveys and community meeting – as venues for
community input to foster local ownership.
As mentioned earlier, 10 pilot sub-city level Eco City Plans were recently developed, one for
each subcity.26 The target is to have one for each kebele eventually (by 2005). These 10 Guides
have been approved by the Addis City Council, and several more are now underway. The Eco
City Guides we revoewed (for kebele 11 in Kirkos subcity and kebeles 03 and 04 in Arada subcity)
are very comprehensive documents that present base data on socioeconomic conditions, and
present proposals for phased improvements. The City coordinated and provided technical
assistance to the sub-cities to develop the pilot Eco City Guides.
The AACA has developed 20 such plans so far, all focusing on the urban development and
renewal of strategic investment areas identified in the Structure Plan in the core of Addis for
“slum clearance”. Unlike the Eco City Plans developed at the sub-city level, these LDPs are
developed by the AACA. In the event that the Eco City Plan and the LDP conflict, the latter
prevails. As part of the slum clearance process, these LDPs promote condominium housing for
“densification” of core city areas.
25
Kefle-kitama is a subnational level of government at the subcity level.
26
There are 10 subcities in Addis, each with their respective local governments headed by the Mayors and SubCity
Managers, who hold the primary efforts of initiating development efforts in their areas of jurisdiction. The kebele
government is the next level, and serves as the bridge between local development plans and the City Structure Plan.
27
Local Development Plans: Summary (prepared for the conference on August 7-10, 2002), Addis Ababa, ORAAMP/
Addis City Government.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 19
Our observation from two of the Eco City Plans and discussions with the Team members
indicate that this process, while based on very sound principles, is working well in some cases,
and not so well in others (see Box 6). For example, in Arada, the Team has used a community
action-oriented approach, where local assets are being leveraged for development projects: the
local community has been mobilized and is actively contributing labor and resources towards
the implementation of several improvement efforts.
But discussions with some of the other teams seem to indicate that Arada is an exception rather
than the norm. Some of the shortcomings identified include:
- time constraints in development of the Eco City Plan, as a result of which the analysis and
recommendations are not as thorough;
- the concept of urban “renewal”, rather than on-site “upgrading”, is being pushed by the
subcity officials due to lack of technical knowledge on other options.
A random community meeting, attended by some 25 participants, served indirectly as an evaluation of the level of interest,
participation and knowledge of the proposed condominium program in the settlement. Here we present their understanding and
perceptions of the new condominium projects, in their own words:
- 30 percent down payment required for purchase, and monthly mortgage payments for 15 to 30 year periods.
Condominiums will have a range of house types – including studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units
- there is a total of 4,500 applicants, with an average monthly income of less than B500 per month. [Note: 13 out of the 25
meeting participants were among these 4,500 applicants. But only one person (who was one of the 9 representatives of
the 3 kebeles involved in the strategic planning exercise) knew the price of the apartments (3BR- B126,000; 2BR-
B65,000 to B90,000; Studio- B30,000)
- Priority of purchase will be given to applicants; Condominiums that are not purchased will be rented
- According to the kebele chairperson, only 10 of the 4,500 applicants are willing or in a financial position to buy the
condominium. The rest are expecting to rent the apartments. An amount of B50 monthly was suggested as the
acceptable/ affordable amount for mortgage payments.
- Some of the residents who haven’t applied are hoping that they will be able to move to the better houses of those who
move to condominiums.
This indicates that inadequate community participation was carried out in the planning of the Housing Program, which conflicts
with the very basis of the Structure Plan. This seems to have been implemented as a top-down process where people were
given the choice between what they currently have (which is very little – no toilet, no kitchen, and very limited space) and a
condominium. No other options (such as upgrading, sites-and-services etc) were discussed during the project planning stage.
This explains the high number of applicants (4,500), despite the low affordability.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 20
A review of the document made some interesting revelations. The site analysis shows that there are two distinct portions of the
kebele settlement, one with about 80 percent substandard kebele housing, and the other with 80 percent good quality private
housing. In the recommendations section, however, the interventions proposed for both parts of the site are nearly the same:
primarily urban renewal involving mass construction of condominium housing. The only difference was in the phasing/ timing of
the projects based on priority areas.
Follow-up discussions with the Planning Team involved in the development of some of the Eco City Plans indicate inherent
shortcomings in the process that inhibit or make community participation difficult. According to some Team members, they
were working under tight constraints to come up with a development plan. They were told that the Eco-City Concept required
that residents should be retained on site, while also making space for commercial development: condominiums were suggested
by the government as the only “feasible” option. Further, time limitations did not allow for adequate or accurate data collection,
especially with reference to socioeconomic conditions, which makes a proper assessment of affordability very difficult, if not
impossible.
Existing Proposed
As the Eco City Plan of Kebele 21 indicates (Box 7), even in situations where the housing stock
was “improvable”, the tendency is to propose the construction of new condominium buildings
to re-house all the residents. This poses some critical questions, not just about affordability of
the beneficiaries and its implications on cost recovery and financial sustainability, but also
about the technical capacity of the local administration, the guidance they provide to the Eco
City Team, and about the housing sector approach of the Addis City in general, that emphasizes
condominium construction as the overarching solution to the housing problem.
strong resolve on part of the officials to address the housing problem, but at the same time,
revealed a lack of awareness regarding the various options, alternatives and tools available to
tackle the problem in it entirety. Indeed the Ministry itself is short-staffed and in an
overwhelming situation in terms of technical skills and resources to address, among so many
other problems, this large-scale and pressing issue of housing in Ethiopia as a whole.
SECTION III
HOUSING PROGRAMS IN ADDIS
With these channels in place to implement housing programs, there are currently several types
of initiatives being undertaken. Kebele upgrading programs are being actively pursued by both
government and non-government actors. NGOs and CBOs, in addition to general
environmental improvements in existing settlements, are also getting increasingly involved in
the maintenance and rehabilitation of kebele houses. The AACA, in the meanwhile, is focused
more on two fronts: one, regularization of “illegal” settlements, and two, redeveloping strategic
areas in the city core earmarked for “urban renewal”.
The focus of the EDO28 is on upgrading existing settlements through the provision of access
roads, water, sanitation facilities (communal toilets), communal kitchens, drains, primary
schools, health facilities, playgrounds, and other community facilities. The community is
Self Development Association (SDA) is a CBO in kebele 36. Concern helped establish SDA, as it phased out its own operation
of a 5-year upgrading program in this settlement. SDA is now licensed by the Ministry of Justice as a registered CBO. SDA’s
areas of focus include: (i) improvement and construction of kitchen/ latrine/ condemned houses; (ii) health / HIV / gender equity
issues; (iii) educational and vocational training
With regard to physical upgrading, SDA has prepared a project proposal—a 2 year plan—for improvements in the settlement.
The organization has a savings of about 90,000 Birr in the bank to commence the improvement projects immediately, but is
awaiting approval from the kebele. (The proposal was submitted to the kebele for approval in 2003, but a decision is still
pending). On-going infrastructure upgrading projects of the SDA include the construction of 10 kitchens, maintenance of
Concern’s projects which include 38 houses and 18 kitchens.
According to the SDA Chairperson, “the approval process is not too long. The Local Development Committee includes kebele
officials and community members. Together they identify houses for rehabilitation or maintenance. The kebele draws up a plan;
SDA implements it (previously Concern did the implementation). They have to be sure to follow the original house “plan” to the
minutest detail, which in other words means that they cannot add more rooms or deviate from the existing layout. Interestingly,
SDA is trying to get around this limitation by building the houses a bit taller, just enough to accommodate mezzanines but
unnoticeable to the outsider!”
28
The EDO was established 6 years ago, in 1998, with the objective of reducing poverty, creating job opportunities,
and empowering the communities to participate in decision making. The EDO has representatives at the city, sub-
city, and kebele levels, who coordinate with several subcommittees responsible for the different stages of the
project—from project planning to implementation and management—and the Neighborhood Development
Committee.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 23
actively engaged in identifying and prioritizing local projects, and is also expected to contribute
at least 35 percent of the project cost. The EDO, for most part, does not get involved in kebele
house maintenance or construction which, they claim “is the responsibility of the Housing
Agency”.
NGOs and CBOs are now increasingly participating in charity or self-funded improvement
programs. We talked to people from several such organizations – including Care, Concern (see
Box 8), Sister Jemba and CBISDO (see Box 9). Their programs comprise primarily infrastructure
upgrading activities, construction/repair of kebele houses, communal kitchens and toilets, water
supply, skills development to increase employment generation. The local communities are
mobilized to participate in these programs, and often contribute in the form of labor.
It is worth emphasizing again that with regard to the repair of dilapidated kebele houses, despite
the fact that the project might be fully funded by these organizations, and the fact that
ownership of the house will be retained by the government after the improvement, no
variations in the house plan are permissible. In other words, even if a particular plot has more
space to make an additional room/toilet, this is not permissible by law. Further, approvals
“CBISDO is one of the few real development-oriented CBOs in Addis,” according to the Manager of the CBO, “because edirs
constitute the large percentage of CBOs in Addis.” CBISDO was founded in 1998 after the phasing out of IHAUDP, an NGO,
and CBISDO’s parent organization. It has a Board comprising 15 members, 35 percent of whom are from the government,
others from the community. It covers two kebeles, 09 and 10, with about 30,000 people. According to the CBO Manager, this
community was termed as the “poorest of the poor” in a World Bank study 22 years ago, and not much has changed since.
Remarkably, however, CBISDO is very well organized with several areas of focus, including an income generating unit (IGU)
with activities such as handicrafts, food production etc (workers get 65 percent of the proceeds coming from sale of their
goods), health services (AIDS awareness and counseling), and social services (education sponsorship for young children,
particularly orphans, housing improvement/ maintenance etc). There are 52 programs in all. Funds are primarily self-generated,
supported by donor and government agencies through IHAUDP.
In addition to the upgrading efforts undertaken by the kebele/ EDO (including building access roads and drains), CBISDO is
actively involved in the following:
- Water supply: CBISDO installed 7 water points in the community (with assistance and subsidy from AAWASA), as well as
4 blocks of showers with 10 rooms each. Management and maintenance of these facilities is the responsibility of the CBO.
Payment for water is collected by CBO-appointed resident of the community (@ 5 Ethiopian cents for 10 liters). Similarly,
people pay 1 Birr for use of showers.
- Youth Center: The CBO recently completed a Youth Center that cost roughly 2.5 million Birr. 60 percent of the cost was
covered by aid, the remaining 40 percent came from the income generating unit of CBISDO.
- Communal facilities: Construction and maintenance of communal toilets and kitchens.
- New Housing: Construction of pilot apartment-style housing under direction of the kebele (discussed in Box 12)
- Housing maintenance: In close coordination with the kebele, CBISDO also undertakes the repair and maintenance of
dilapidated kebele housing structures. Houses to be demolished or improved are identified together by the kebele
authorities and the Education Extension Workers, also called the “Yellow Girls” (due to the color of their uniform!).
Permission and approval for the construction is sought from the kebele before commencement of improvements.
Residents are moved into transit homes until the construction work is completed.
-
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 24
required by the kebele for any improvements take time, and cause delays in upgrading efforts.
An example is a local CBO—Self Development Association (SDA)—in kebeles 36 and 37 that has
been waiting for over a year for approval from the kebele to undertake a self-initiated and self-
funded upgrading program. These are clearly hurdles to home improvement, and largely
responsible for the poor conditions of the large majority of the kebele houses today.
Recognizing the shortage of land and housing supply, and the people’s struggle to find
alternative affordable housing solutions, the AACA passed Regulation No. 1 (mentioned
earlier) in 1998 in an attempt to legalize these settlements. The regulation sought to legalize
housing units (including land possession) constructed or possessed up to 1995 without a legal
permit from the municipality (even though they might have an unrecognized legal permit from
the Kebele, Woreda and Peasant Association), so long as the land use was in accordance with the
Master Plan. All other illegal houses would be demolished. In other words, of the total 2,000 Ha
occupied by informal housing, the Regulation would legalize some 930 Ha, and demolish units
on the remaining 1,070 Ha.29 Demolition of many of these settlements is currently under way
(data not available yet).
Due to the delays in bringing this regulation into effect, the years following its proclamation
have seen an even faster growth in informal settlements. The hope of getting legal tenure to the
land attracted more migrants, and speculators alike, and “sale” prices increased. This is likely to
continue since regulatory and enforcement mechanisms to stop the proliferation of new
construction is still not in place. However, since 1998, the government—through the kebeles—
has been trying to impose control on new construction, which has met with only partial success
so far.
As discussed under the “formal” housing section, provision of serviced plots is another channel
of housing delivery in Ethiopia. These include serviced sites both with and without core units.
An example of serviced sites without core units is the on-going project at Lafta. This is a mixed-
income mixed-use development initiated by UNCDF (United Nations Capital Development
Fund), and being implemented by UDCBO. The project is being financed through a revolving
fund: the UN will provide the seed money, which is to be recovered and re-invested into other
housing projects. There are 2,000 plots in all, of which 1,750 are targeted to low-income families.
For low-income families, the sale price of the plot is 250 Birr. The subsidy is notable: the
development also includes larger plots for middle- and high-income groups, to be sold on an
individual lease basis at a rate of 1,600 Birr/sq.mt.
29
There might be a discrepancy here. According to the Structure Plan: Housing Component document, this figure
should be approximately 40 percent of the total illegal housing stock.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 25
Other areas recently developed by the City as pilots are Bole Bulbula (6,000 plots), Keraniyo
(7,518 plots), and Mekanissa (7,523 plots), with plots ranging from 105 sq.mt. to 175 sq.mt. But
less than 15 percent of these are intended for low income households.
Addis also has experience with core housing projects. Although there are no such projects
currently on-going, they are worth a mention because of their contribution to the “formal”
housing stock of the city. A prime example is the World Bank-funded Urban Development
Project, initiated in 1984. The major components of this project were:
- the construction of cooperative dwelling units in the serviced site in Nefas Silk (with a total
of 3,500 services plots for residential, commercial and industrial use; 3,150 plots were for
residential use, of which 2,482 were targeted towards low income families), and
- an upgrading scheme at Teklemenhot, focusing
on improvements of roads and water supply Box 10. Nefas Silk Site-and-Service
(affecting 8,200 households). Project
In this project, also called the Urban-I, the initial
target group included households earning between
All housing construction in the serviced sites was 140 and 170 Birr per month, but later this threshold
was increased to 250 Birr per month for Core+0
undertaken using the self-help housing cooperatives. houses, and to 350 Birr for Core +1 and Core+2
A total of 3,150 housing units were built in four houses. This was due to a delay in project start-up
that resulted in price escalation. Despite problems
phases. The first three phases comprised 2,470 units of affordability and shifting to a different target
(through 80 cooperatives). Three types of housing group, the project is largely considered a success.
Today, twenty years since project completion,
were constructed: Core+0, Core+1, Core+2, with people continue to improve their homes
separate traditional kitchens and pit latrines. The incrementally: many houses that started out as a
Core+0 have now added 2-3 more rooms, and
plot size was 144 sq.mt. for all house types. See Box there are many two story structures.
10 for more details.
As mentioned under Section 1.4.1, part of urban renewal and densification programs for the
city, the Addis government has planned a target of roughly 30,000 “low-cost housing”
condominium units to be built annually for the next 5 years.
A pilot project has been completed by the Addis Ababa City Government in Bole-Gerji, south of
the Addis airport. Comprising 700 units, GTZ-International Services (GTZ-IS) was the
implementing agency. This project constitutes a mix of studio, 1 BR, 2 BR and 3 BR units;
studios and 1 BR units are geared towards the low-income groups. Studios and 1 BRs constitute
about two-thirds of the total number of units in the pilot in Gerji. Shared facilities include space
for storage, shops, a butchery and so on. The expected gross population density is 700
persons/Ha.
The cost of construction (excluding land) of these units amounts to approximately 870
Birr/sq.mt. The government intends to provide a subsidy for the “poor” by bringing their
purchase price down to 700 Birr/sq.mt. The “low-income target group” is currently being
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 26
defined by the government as that with a monthly income of 300-600 Birr/month.30 A 10-30
percent upfront down payment is required for purchase. According to various sources, 60 more
similar-sized sites have been identified for condominium construction.
The project at Gerji was implemented using some 300 local micro-enterprises in the production
of materials, and generated employment for nearly 3,000 local laborers for construction and
production of materials. GTZ claims that there is more than enough “demand”, and that these
houses will provide the solution for Addis’ housing crisis by densifying the city, and making it
“more hygienic and livable”. It aims to tap into the funds of local credit and savings
associations, estimated at 400 million Birr (US$50 million), contributed by some 3,000 members,
who would be the target buyers of these units.
On the question of affordability and the target group, both GTZ and the government claim that
this pilot project will start by targeting those households that “can afford” to purchase these
units. Kebele houses vacated as a result will be either cleared to make way for “better”
development, or used as temporary accommodation for those who are living in the worst
conditions, until they can be moved into condominiums built in subsequent phases.
According to the ORAAMP Planning Commissioner, “given the current situation, the issue of
housing tenure does not apply to the “upgrading” of existing kebele houses; upgrading is being
done only to keep the existing housing stock functioning in the medium term”. This raises the
question: Is upgrading only a temporary fix to the problem of under-serviced housing, where
the government plans to intervene and assist, only to tear it all down later under a phased
urban renewal program? The following section discusses some of the key implications of such
an approach to housing.
30
During our meetings, we heard different versions from the various officials, so it appears as though the plan for
cross-subsidy or financing is still unclear, despite the fact that the pilot project is ready for sale/occupancy.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 27
SECTION IV
IMPLICATIONS OF CURRENT HOUSING APPROACH
Kebele housing: While much of the kebele housing is in bad condition, there is also a large
percentage that is “livable”, as a consequence of people’s own efforts to improve or maintain
the house, or through work being done by NGOs and CBOs. While we do not have an accurate
number for the funding that has gone into the improvements of these houses, and the
settlements as a whole, an estimate can be made from EDO’s annual budget, which is 142
million Birr for FY2004.31 Adding 35 percent to this (the amount that the community is required
to contribute, at minimum), this amounts to roughly 190 million Birr of investment in
upgrading by EDO alone. To cite an example of an NGO, we take the example of Care’s
program that includes infrastructure development, and interventions for transport, flood
prevention, drainage, water and sanitation. Their total budget from 1993 to 2003 was roughly
US$11 million. This is an equivalent of 8-10 million Birr annually.
Private housing: With urban renewal usually associated with “clearance” of identified areas, it is
assumed that the “good quality” private houses scattered in these settlements will be
demolished as well to create contiguous parcels for development. As mentioned earlier, the
owners have invested substantial amounts in the construction of these houses, whose market
value today would be in the range of 200K to 300K Birr, on average. Demolition will mean the
destruction of this capital investment, plus the cost of compensation, which simply doubles the
cost of housing any of these families (assuming compensation is at least equal to the market
value of the house).
Illegal housing: Similarly with regard to “illegal” housing, it has been mentioned earlier that
many cooperatives have tried to meet the minimum building standards (for example, in terms
of plot sizes, right-of-ways, and building materials). A significant amount of money has been
invested into this housing by the private sector. Many also already have access to basic services.
The current proposition per Regulation 1—to demolish 1,070 Ha of illegal development in order
to comply with the Structure Plan—has serious ramifications. Assuming a resettlement cost of
25,000 Birr per family, and a density of 40 Households per Ha, this is going to cost the
government 100 million Birr.32 Besides, the Structure Plan recognizes that these settlements
constitute a large percentage of the housing that has been built in response to the government’s
inability to meet housing demand. Hence, rather than demolition, the government might be
better suited in revisiting the proposed land use plan so it better responds to the existing uses.
31
the budget for FY 2005 is significantly higher, at 400 million Birr.
32
Assumptions taken from “Study on Informal Settlements”, Land Management Study Group, Addis Ababa
Development and Improvement Office (2002?)
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 28
4.2 Densification
The idea of densifying in the central city, while appropriate, does not take into consideration
that the real population densities of many of the kebele settlements are already quite high. To get
an idea of the population density in these settlements, let us assume an average house size of 20
sq.mt., to which we can add about 30 percent for circulation and open space. Using the CSA
household size of 5.2, we get a gross density of approximately 2,000 persons/Ha. This is
extremely high, but might in fact be an underestimation: we saw many households with 8-10
members living in a 12-15 sq.mt. space during our field visits.
Further, it is interesting to note that many families have built another level (mezzanine/ loft)
within their single story structures to meet their space needs (see Annex B). This, in effect, is a
second floor. If allowed—through privatization or by easing the strict controls on renovations—
people would improve their houses and build additional floors, possibly even for rent, naturally
easing the burden from the government.
The point to be made here is that the low-rise residential fabric in kebele settlements does not
necessarily imply “low population density”; this requires revisiting the “densification”
argument as the basis for urban renewal.
That said, we must also acknowledge that some of the neighborhoods are simply too congested
to be upgraded, or privatized (through direct sale of plot/house to the individual). Many have
the row house type arrangement without space to build individual toilets or kitchens. These are
also the most congested places in the settlements, and house the poorest residents. While simple
on-site upgrading might not be amenable in these cases, there are several other options that can
be explored before we go upscale with the condominium approach. These include approaches
such as guided land development and reblocking, preferably at the neighborhood/community
level.
With regard to the privatization of kebele housing (and land), rather than giving individual titles
(which could take relatively longer and have higher transaction costs), options such as the
Community Land Trust (CLT) may be explored. The CLT
involves issuance of “block titles”, and has the added Box 11. Community Land Trust
advantage of retaining the land subsidy within the
beneficiary community, while providing a continuous For more information on the Community
Land Trust, please refer to the following
supply of affordable housing for the poor (see Box 11). websites:
These Trusts may be established in parallel with housing
cooperatives at the community level, capitalizing on an http://www.plannersweb.com/ar
already institutionalized and successful system of housing ticles/pet112.html
development in the country. The cooperatives can engage http://users.lazerlink.net/~scclt/
what.htm
in their choice of housing development, whether it be on-
site upgrading, condominium construction, or mixed-use
development (possibly including commercial areas for
income generation), based on their financial ability and
personal choice.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 29
4.3 Condominiums
Let us assume that financing system is designed such that subsidies are targeted on the
household income level (and capacity to pay) of the buyers rather than the unit type. This
implies subsidy to low-income households regardless of the size of the unit purchased. Interest
is assumed to be 7 percent annually, for a term of 15 years. These figures are extremely
conservative by any standards; in Ethiopia, interest on loans to individuals for periods longer
than 5 years today stands at 8.5 percent. Let us also assume that a household can be expected to
spend 25 percent of the monthly income on housing.
According to the Housing Agency Manager, the government plans to subsidize the price for the
poor to 700 Birr per sq.mt. For example, that a studio costing the government 27,160 Birr will be
sold to a low income family for roughly 22,400 Birr. But since the financing plan is still unclear,
this analysis regarding affordability is based on the principle of full cost recovery.
Tables 7(a) and (b) present the payment amounts for the different unit types, taking the two
amounts (870 Birr/sq.mt. and 970 Birr/sq.mt.) into consideration, and work backward to
33
Source: Addis Housing Agency Manager, and GTZ officials in separate meetings in July, 2004.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 30
identify the target groups for each. As Table 7(a) indicates, based on a cost of 870Birr/sq.mt., the
target household for a studio apartment is one that is earning at least 612 Birr per month., and
that for a 1-BR unit, 1,117 Birr per month; this, in effect, excludes 60 percent of the population
from purchasing the studio, and 75 percent from the 1-BR.
Similarly, based on a cost of 970 Birr/sq.mt., the monthly income for potential buyers of the
studio and 1-BR units needs to be 684 and 1245 Birr, respectively. This implies that 85 percent of
the population will not be able to afford even the studio.
Hence, to sum up, it will be advisable to use Gerji as a “pilot” for the middle and upper income
groups with the objective to jump-start the housing construction process, and promoting
private sector participation in housing delivery. The limited resources and efforts of the
government would be better spent on removing the obstacles from private sector participation
(by introducing systems of housing guarantees, incentives for housing development, and so on),
rather than for housing construction, per se.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 31
Case Example: Marima Mohammad is a resident on the upper story of this pilot housing project. She has been living in this
kebele for over 30 years. Her household members include her husband, and 7 children. Before moving into this apartment,
Marima’s family was living in 4 rooms, for a monthly rent of Birr 18. Since rent change (increase or decrease) is not permissible,
they continue to pay the same amount today. The only difference is that they now have only one room to live in. This room
serves as their cooking, living and sleeping area.
An innovative feature built by the family is a mezzanine/ loft, constituting a floor slab at the lintel level. This serves as additional
sleeping space. The slab extends from the back end of the room across the entrance corridor to the front facade of the building,
built by pulling out the concrete blocks above the lintel. This space is accessed by a ladder at the back of the room through a
hole in the mezzanine slab above. The front end of this mezzanine—barely a crawling space, about a foot in height—is
completely sealed off, which means there is absolutely no light or ventilation except for what comes through the hole with the
access ladder. Marima and her three daughters sleep in the space above the room, the two older sons sleep in the little nook
above the corridor, while the husband and the youngest son sleep on the bed in the room.
When approached by the kebele about this new housing arrangement 5 years ago, Marima was among two people who
protested. The other woman lived in a private house and was given two rooms to compensate. Marima claims that her previous
house was in a good condition, the problem areas being the kitchen and the bathroom, but with some funding assistance, she
would have been able to fix that. Instead, however, for lack of other housing options, she was forced to accept this new
arrangement.
Now with no ground space to spill out on, the corridors are used for a variety of purposes – drying laundry, cooking, children
playing and so on. Sadly, she feels no connection to this house, calling it a “hotel room”, a “temporary arrangement”, “not a
house” where her other family members can visit or stay. Consequently, she is completely opposed to the idea of buying the
unit – or any other similar condominium unit – one, for lack of money for down payment, and two, because it is just too small,
she says. Again, she might consider buying a larger unit, but will not be able to afford it. She would have preferred to upgrade
her previous unit by herself.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 32
- The issue of social safety nets plays a critical role in low-income families. Unless a system of
cooperatives is adopted where families and friends get together to occupy units in the
condominiums close to each other, this could lead to a breakdown in the social fabric.
A similar condominium housing program in the Philippines also presents the same lesson.34
The government of the Philippines invested large sums of money into 4-5 story condominium
housing, similar in scale to the Gerji project. Today, years after completion of the project, many
of these condominiums either lie vacant, or occupied by non-paying residents. This is attributed
largely to affordability issues and the unsuitability of the layout/ design of these units for low-
income families. On the contrary, upgrading projects involving reblocking (with plots sizes of
40-70 sq.mt.) and microfinancing under the Community Mortgage Program (that facilitated
incremental housing improvements by the households themselves) have proved extremely
successful.
34
This is based on findings from an ADB-funded PPTA conducted by PADCO in 2002, “Metro Manila Urban Services
for the Poor”.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 33
Bibliography
Papers
Arnaud, M. Addis Ababa: Comments about Housing and Land Policy under preparation, Ethio-
French Project FSP 2001-2010 for implementation of the revised masterplan 2002-2005, Ministry
of Federal Affairs/ City Government of Addis Ababa, April 2003.
Bertaud, Alain et al. Improving the Delivery of Urban Land and Housing in Ethiopia: The Case
of Addis Ababa (Draft), April 2004.
Dolicho, Eyob. Improving access to housing for low income groups through self help housing
cooperatives in Addis Ababa, HIS, Rotterdam, 1997.
Gulyani S. et al. Improving the Delivery of Urban Land and Housing in Ethiopia (draft, May
2004), The World Bank.
Mulugeta, S. Integrating Local Development Planning and Slum Upgrading in Urban Policy in
Ethiopia, Urban Management Program, UN-Habitat/ UNDP, July 2004.
AACA. Addis Ababa in Action: Progress through Partnership, City Development Plan: 2001-
2010: Executive Summary, Addis Ababa City Government, Works and Development Bureau,
ORAAMP August 2002.
AACA. Addis Ababa in Action: Progress through Partnership, Local Development Plans:
Summary, ORAAMP, Addis Ababa City Government, August 2002.
AACA. Addis Ababa in Action: Progress through Partnership, Strategic Planning for Addis
Ababa: Executive Summary, ORAAMP, UN-Habitat, Cities Alliance, Addis Ababa City
Government, August 2002.
AACA. An Operation Manual prepared for development activities through the participation of
inhabitants, Addis Ababa City Administration Trade and Development Bureau, Environmental
Development Office, Addis Ababa, 1995.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 34
AACA. Draft Summary Report on Informal Settlements, Addis Ababa Development and
Improvement Project Office: Land Management Study Group (2002?).
AACA. Eco City Guide: Kirkos Subcity, Keble 21, Urban Rehabilitation Programme, Project
Area Code: ECP-Kirkos-K21, Addis Ababa Administration, April 2004.
Alemahu, Liku et al. Slum Upgrading Projects Planning Manual for Addis Ababa: Final Draft,
Addis Ababa City Administration, Policy Study and Planning Commission, April 2004.
Girmay, Tsegaya. Assessment, Evaluation and Concluding Remarks of the Addis Ababa
Masterplan on Housing Sector, Works and Development Bureau, Addis Ababa, July 1999.
GTZ. Low Cost Housing: Technical Manual for Ministry of Federal Affairs, GTZ (2003??)
Kirkos Subcity. Kebele 21 Model Project: Final Socioeconomic Analysis and Project Proposal,
Eco City for Kirkos Subcity, April 2004.
PADCO. Metro Manila Urban Services for the Poor Project, Philippines, ADB, 2002.
UDPO. Project Completion Report: Urban Development Project, Addis Ababa Urban
Development Project Office, December 1989.
UDPO. Report on Assessment of Potential Co-op Members from Tekle Haimanot , Addis Ababa
Urban Development Project Office, July 1989.
Newspaper Articles
Capital. “Meles inaugurates GTZ low-cost housing”, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, July 18, 2004.
Fortune. “City Administration to Spend 1.2b Br on Housing this Year”, Addis Ababa, July 18,
2004.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 35
Perspective. “People with less than 250 Birr monthly not likely to own houses: Mayor”, July 24,
2004.
The Ethiopian Herald. “Premier inaugurates Bole/ Gerji pilot apartments project,” July 18, 2004.
Web Articles
The Urban Institute and The Brookings Institution. A Decade of HOPE VI: Research Findings
and Policy Challenges, May 2004.
Fosburg L. et al, An Historical and Baseline Assessment to HOPE VI, Vol. 1-3, 1996 (source:
www.huduser.org/publications/pubasst/hopevi.html, August 13, 2004).
State College Community Land Trust. “What is a Community Land Trust?”, State College
Community Land Trust. (source: www.lazerlink.com/~scclt, August 13, 2004)
People Met
Gutema Bulcha, UDCBO
Tsegai Ghebrezghi, UDCBO
Abebe Kebede, MOF
Sissay Dejene, MOF
Nega, MOF
Ato Kinde, EDO
Ayalew Abey, ORAAMP Planning Commissioner, AACA
Daniel Tadesse, Manager, Housing Agency, AACA
Ato Hussein, Engineer, Adama City
Mulat Tegegn, Kirkos Subcity Manager
Shewangezew Seyoum, Planner, Kirkos Eco City Plan
Arada Subcity Manager
Tilahun Bekele, Architect, Arada Eco City Plan
Ilias Dirie, Cities Alliance/UN-Habitat
Richard Woods, Cities Alliance/UN-Habitat
Ruth Erlbeck, GTZ-IS
Ralph, GTZ-IS
CBO Leader, Self Development Association/ Concern
CBO Manager, CBISDO
Country Representative, Care
ANNEX A
HOUSEHOLD PROFILES
Desta moved here over 30 years ago as a child, and has lived
here since. Her house is roughly 4x5 mt. in area, divided into
two rooms: the front space houses the injera oven and used
primarily for cooking. The rear windowless space is the sleeping
area.
Her family shared the pit latrine of the original owner until
recently. That’s filled up now, and the “landlord”—or the
original owner before nationalization, so to say—has declined to
get it cleaned as the users (which include 5 other households)
have to no money to contribute.
Her house rent is 6 Birr a month, which she hasn’t paid in over 5
years, and hence has an outstanding debt with the kebele
authorities of about 500 Birr. She says she cannot borrow money
from the kebele’s micro-credit facility because that needs a
guarantor with a salary of 1000Birr a month, and there’s no one
she knows with that sort of income who will support her.
Keder started his business using a 1000 Birr loan from ADIS, for
which he used the trading license of a friend as a collateral. The
household income from sales is roughly 350 Birr per month. The
shop is owned by the kebele, for which Keder pays a commercial
rent of 106 Birr per month. Keder is sponsoring his brothers’
education, and this costs him about 80 Birr annually, roughly 7
Birr a month, for books and uniforms (tuition is free).
The five live in the shop, a wood structure, with a concrete floor
and a corrugated iron sheet roof, about 3x3.5 mt. in area. The
entrance to the shop also serves as the cooking area, and
includes a self-constructed mezzanine to make additional
sleeping space for the two brothers. Keder, his wife and child,
sleep in the shop. Keder has been living here for 15 years now,
and “inherited” the house from relatives who moved elsewhere.
With the lower rent, Etetu now manages to save about 300-400
Birr per month, part of which she invests in a range of
associations (kebele, idder etc.). Access to loans is easy, since both
she and her husband have formal sector jobs.
This house was originally a simple chika house, 7x4 mt. in area.
The family has undertaken some home improvements since their
move: renovation of the façade with a larger steel framed door
and window in 2003, and creation of a cooking space in the rear
area earlier this year. They spent approximately 4,500 Birr for
these modifications. Etetu estimates the current market value of
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 42
The house has its own electricity connection (with a meter), and
pays an average of 6 Birr per month for the use of a single light
bulb, which is kept on practically all day due to the poor natural
lighting of the room. The family does not have access to toilet
facilities, and cannot build a pit due to lack of additional space.
They relieve themselves on the creek-side. Garbage is also
disposed of in the creek.
With the poor quality of the construction of the house, as well its
precarious location, she has to frequently repair the rear chika
wall. On an annual basis, this costs an average of 70 Birr. Her
kebele rent is 3.75 Birr per month which she hasn’t paid for
nearly 5 years now.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 44
The house has all the basic modern amenities, including a fridge,
TV with cable, phone and so on. They also have their own
electricity and water connections. Water costs roughly 35 Birr,
electricity 100 Birr, and the phone 30 Birr a month. These
services, they say, are adequate but expensive. They can only
afford these services because of the remittance/assistance money
from the children. And although the physical infrastructure is
adequate for most part, social services are lacking, they say.
They use a local government health center, paying an average of
30 Birr a month.
Atu has lived on this site for 32 years now. He was a renter in the
same part of town before that. The house is a modern concrete
building with a courtyard, sitting on a plot of 200 sq.mt. This
was previously a small chika structure, which the family rebuilt
two years ago. The new structure comprises a large
living/dining area and 3 bedrooms, along with 2 kitchens and 2
bathrooms (with flush toilets, and a private septic tank). The
family was assisted by the expatriate children to fund the
construction which cost approximately 150,000 Birr. Today, Atu
estimates the value of the house to be in the range of 350,000
Birr.
Now with no ground space to spill out on, the corridors are used
for a variety of purposes – drying laundry, cooking, children
playing and so on. Sadly, she feels no connection to this house,
calling it a “hotel room”, a “temporary arrangement”, “not a
house where her other family members can visit or stay….”.
Consequently, she is completely opposed to the idea of buying
the unit – one, for lack of money for down payment, and two,
because it is just too small, she says. Again, she might consider
buying a larger unit, but will not be able to afford it. She would
have preferred to upgrade her previous unit by herself.
The family does not use the health center developed by CBISDO
(the local CBO), because they have to pay 10 Birr per visit there.
Instead, they go to the government clinic, about a 20-minute
walk, which is free. The Youth Center is rarely used, because
children have no time for extra-curricular activities.
Unlike Marima, Bekeletch feels she is much better off with this
housing arrangement than before. Although her unit is just 3x4
mt., she has built a concrete block enclosure around the 1.5 mt.
corridor space in front of her unit, which they use for cooking. A
mezzanine has also been built above this entrance/cooking area,
to create additional bed space. The preferred advantage of a
ground level unit is the courtyard in front of her unit, used for
household chores including laundry and cooking. The
disadvantage, however, is the relatively lower ceiling height
compared to the unit above, which does not give enough space
to build a mezzanine over the entire floor area of the room.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 49
The rent for her apartment is 2.5 Birr per month, but she is not
paying currently, due to some dispute between the kebele and
CBISDO regarding rent collection. Anticipating assistance from
the government, Bekeletch says she cannot afford to pay
anything more towards purchase of her house or land. She
would like to be given this unit for free.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 50
Zemede Teka is 39 years old and lives with her husband and two
young children in kebele 19 of Yerer. Her daughter is 9 year old,
and attends school. Her son is 3 years old. She is among the
poorest in the settlement, and not a member of any of the
development committees as she cannot afford their membership
fees.
She lives in a small chika house with two rooms, a kitchen and a
toilet on a 100 sq.mt. plot. She bought the land 9 years ago, at 14
Birr per sq.mt. (1,400 Birr total), and constructed her house that
cost roughly 3,000 Birr. She has a letter of agreement as proof of
payment for the land purchase, and currently pays an annual
property tax of 20 Birr to the kebele. Before settling here, she
was a renter in a private house 3 kms away, paying a rent of 50
Birr per month.
She has no access to loans because she does not qualify for the
kebele micro-credit facility, and although a member of the
women’s association, it’s new and does not have funds to extend
loans just yet. Zemede is in a financially difficult situation, she
claims, and is willing to take a substantially smaller plot, say 50
sq.mt., in case the government decides to give titles and
upgrade. She is also willing to pay 50 Birr a month for land
purchase. “But ultimately,” she says, “I will do whatever I am
asked to do.”
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 51
Haile is 37 years old, with a wife of 27, three daughters aged 18,
17, and 13 years, and a 2-year old son. The three older children
attend the government primary school nearby, which costs
roughly 11 Birr a month. Health facilities are poor in the vicinity,
Haile says, with only a private clinic close-by. This clinic is
expensive, and not affordable by the large majority. Fortunately,
they haven’t had any health problems in the family, so they
haven’t had to incur any large expenses for treatment so far.
The cooperative has helped provide its members with water and
electricity connections, built gravel roads, and so on. The coop
has established 5 water points to be shared among the 202
households. Haile’s wife manages one of the points, situated
outside her gate. He monitors the usage, and collects the
payments to give to the coop manager who makes the necessary
payments to the water authority. The people pay 5 Eth. cents per
25 liters, which is much cheaper than most other settlements.
Haile’s family spends about 1.5 Birr per day on water, including
water for their cattle, and other household chores. Like many
other households in the community, Haile’s draws an electricity
connection from his neighbor, who happens to be his father, and
pays roughly 10 Birr per month for the use of 1 bulb.
A pit latrine was built in the plot 5 years ago, before which the
family was using the bush. Garbage is disposed of in the river or
the street. There are local private “garbage collectors”, Haile
says, who provide the service for 10-15 Birr a month, but he
cannot afford them.
HOUSING IN ADDIS ABABA 53
Fatiha lives with her husband, a 7-year old daughter, and three
other dependents; these include her 25-year old sister and her
infant daughter, and a 20-year old brother-in-law who is a recent
graduate but unemployed. Fatiha is expecting her second child
any day now. Her husband Wando is a driver in the public
sector, earning about 1,000 Birr per month. His job also takes him
outside of town 2-3 weeks in a month, when he is able to draw
additional savings from his per-diem, and purchase cheaper
food items from outside of town.
Looking down from mezzanine through access hole Owner proudly shows bed space in low-height Upgraded house with higher roof allowing for light
mezzanine and ventilation in mezzanine
Access ladder to the mezzanine Access ladder to the mezzanine Access ladder to the mezzanine