The Call For Responsive City Planning. Part 2

To create a future where affordable homeownership is achievable for everyone, we need to think beyond just the economics. While much attention has hitherto been focused on economic factors, one of the most significant obstacles we often overlook is the role of restrictive planning regulations. 

To put it briefly, our building regulations restrict innovation. This is why we ask: Could rethinking these building codes help us address this housing crisis?

The first part of this sequel was spurred by the fact that, even though innovations exist to maximise space and encourage community living, many of these ideas remain impractical because they fall below “what is approvable” under the current planning rules. Reader feedback suggested that the post's message didn’t resonate because many lack familiarity or experience with the approval process, making it difficult to grasp the concept fully.

This second part, therefore, will provide a few real-life cases of how these codes make it harder to make housing budget responsive. It will also consider possibilities for more efficient, affordable, and liveable housing solutions in our urban areas.

‍

How Regulations Hold Us Back

Building designs and construction is a strictly controlled field. While this is necessary to prevent quackery, building collapse and safety concerns, housing in particular is often bound by rigid building codes that force designers/developers to stick to non-innovative solutions.

A binary set of rules that ignore user/owner peculiarities and do not adjust to context. These rules, while made with good intentions, inadvertently limit creative solutions that could help solve our housing crisis. 

The focus here is more on multi-family developments that are suitable for affordable housing use-case. Most private residences do not particularly get this level of scrutiny, I mean, ‘big man nor dey get trouble’...LOL.

Truth is, the approval process for single-family dwellings is more-or-less straightforward, and there's little we can do about personal preferences. Let’s break this down.

A. Apartment Design Regulations 

On many occasions, spaces like staircases, lobbies and courtyards are left bare and redundant just to avoid the approval office' ‘wahala’. This is because once a space becomes ‘usable’ it must conform to certain standards that render such space either too expensive for the owner to achieve, or just too cumbersome for the designers to navigate.

Most apartment (flat) buildings in Nigeria do not encourage interaction. Hallways, staircases, and other circulation spaces are purely functional, often isolating residents rather than connecting them. On some occasions, this challenge is further exacerbated by restrictions on the possible number of floors the apartment could have.

• Let's imagine that our apartment buildings incorporate circulation areas as semi-private spaces and the physical planning dept. or building control does not see them as ‘a big sitting room’, such that they serve as communal hubs where neighbours meet and interact.
  For instance, instead of everyone living in isolated boxes, we can create communal courtyards, open walkways, and shared balconies that could replace monotonous, isolating hallways. We k*ll 2 birds with one stone, we maximize space/save money while promoting relationships.

B. Setback & Air-spaces: Wasted Space, Unused Land.

In our cities, buildings must be set a certain distance from the property line. While this makes sense for safety and privacy, it often leads to wasted space (about 50% of waste for a standard plot). In dense urban areas, where every square meter counts, setbacks limit the usable area that could otherwise accommodate more housing units or spaces.

• Reducing setback regulations, say by half, for example, will allow developers to gain an additional 25% use of the property, enabling additional housing units or spaces. 
  Of course, this will imply more stringent standards for safety, a rather unavoidable necessity anyway. This will help us optimize the use of already scarce land. Developers will cut costs and pass those savings on to buyers.

C. Parking Requirements: Reducing  Land Use, Increasing Cost.

One major challenge with building affordable housing in Nigeria is the mandatory parking requirements. City regulations still require a minimum number of parking spaces for every apartment building. This requirement drives up the cost of construction by either reducing available land for actual homes or forcing developers to increase the proposed number of floors. 

• In a city like Lagos, most residents don't have a private car. Imagine if we could reduce or remove parking requirements, focusing instead on better public transport or shared mobility solutions. 
  By reducing or eliminating compulsory parking allocation, we could significantly reduce the cost of housing and make it more accessible for low- and middle-income earners. Instead, we can prioritize public transportation or shared mobility solutions, which would serve residents more effectively than private parking spaces.

‍

The Path Forward for Nigerian Cities

All of these examples point to one core truth—Nigeria’s housing crisis won’t be solved simply by building more homes. We need to rethink the rules that govern how we build those homes in the first place. By loosening some of these building codes, embracing innovative designs, and creating communities that foster interaction and connectivity, we will not only make homeownership more affordable but also create neighbourhoods where people truly thrive.

As urbanization continues to rise in Nigeria, the time to rethink our planning regulations is now. If we can learn from global housing innovations and apply them to our local context, we can unlock the full potential of Nigerian cities and provide affordable, sustainable housing for generations to come.

‍