Nairobi Trip

Student Feedback

The Unit 2 students visited Nairobi, Kenya, for a week at the beginning of August where they observed and documented the local's daily activities and living experiences. The students were given a task to graphically present and describe the intangible processes within the chosen sites in Nairobi that demonstrates various spatial and socio-cultural structures within the area. The following feedback explains the various levels found within the presentations done by the students.

What was understood from the project was that the groups had to explore some kind of process of decision making that could happen in order for the Kibera housing project, along the railway line, to be a more successful project that responds to the changing needs of its inhabitants. 

For instance, what could be a successful output for the housing? Let’s say an area isn’t successful. Through the use of existing data and observations on site, one could develop an assumption of what could possibly happen within certain spaces due to the inhabitant’s needs. What makes this area successful and unsuccessful and what lead up to the construction of this housing? According to the interpretations of the A3 presentations and student interviews, it seemed as though there was a very complex process leading up to the final outcome of the housing project. What informed the tangible occupancy from the intangible negotiations?

How could the everyday spatial activities that occur within the informal settlements be incorporated into the formal housing scheme? Activities such as washing and drying of laundry as well as an allocated space for cooking, that caters to their everyday rituals were observed by certain students.

Source: Darren Van Gool, Andrea Relling and Ngwato Kekana

From the presentations, it seemed that the area which was unsuccessful in its usage was definitely the space that is seen as the back end of the housing project that faced the railway line. This space is seen as a completely baron and a wasted space that could have been incorporated in some way within the housing scheme in a positive way in order to generate revenue via this extension onto the existing structure. The area that was somewhat unsuccessful were spaces with narrow pathways, where individuals refused to demolish certain units in order to widen the space. Pedestrianized spaces that felt more comfortable were the ones where individuals negotiated between the housing and informal settlement to widen the pathway.