THEORITICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 3.1Global Nature of HDS
3.1.2 Perspectives to the global Housing Problem
It has been established that changing perception of the housing problem may be attributed to changing historical conditions of societies in the built environment for which the housing is intended (Ying,1997).This is traceable to the fact that globally, housing used to be a household responsibility until the advent of industrialization. Through self-help, individuals and communal groups achieved housing delivery (Dmochowski, 1988; Hunter, 1981). Therefore, housing was at a point in global circles an individual problem. However, through industrialization housing became a city (of public and private) problem for the emerging urban society and consequently a socio-economic problem (Barney, 2004). The need to redistribute national income between investment and consumption within the context of scarce resources became an issue (Pugh, 1980). It is the consequent urbanization and the economic implication,
which has driven housing into becoming a major urban problem; even though, it was once thought of as a public concern requiring public-private participation at the city level (Sengupta, 2006; Smith, 1998; Sivan et.al, 2001). As socio-economic influence of housing on society persisted, housing gradually evolved into a global issue of human rights dimension (Leckie, 1989). Although, it is unclear how this ‘right’ fits into the general socio-economic development process and how it can be translated into tangible and acceptable socio-cultural standards as experienced diversely. Leckie (ibid), suggested six criteria for adequacy namely, physical structure, site, infrastructure, facilities supplied, costs, location, and legal security of tenure with a plural emphasis on the need for details and specificity.
The human right problem of housing has inadvertently made the housing debate go a full cycle from individual to social and then back to the individual. Therefore, in the critical mass of all analysis, housing remains an individual problem within settings (whether rich or poor, as well as the state of being, which is low-income, middle-income, or urban poor or rural poor). Since need and effective demand must exist for housing process to be initiated and the housing product to emanate.
Most democratic countries of the world (including Nigeria) have adapted this human right declaration of an individual’s right to housing constitutionally. This is against the inability to interpret the relevant applicability to local context: In terms of a single family or an individual or a commune. In effect, developing countries have attempted (like the rest of the developed world) to provide housing, create enabling environments and more recently partner with the private sector and society to achieve housing delivery in no clear terms of reference theoretically. The clear terms of reference need not be general but more specific in the definition of stakeholders’ activity and the resultant outcomes that should be more predictive in nature. Among stakeholders are professional experts whose notions continue to undermine realities. Hamdi(1995:3) documented this phenomenon in an unprecedented way as follow;
“if we ask what kind of professionals and professional intentions are demanded to meet this problem or what methods,tools,skills,knowledge,attitudes, and theories of practice might help,the answers,from even the most eminent
‘housing expert’,will be much less confident and much more moddled.The answers will vary according to how the problems are perceived,which in turn will vary according to who provides the definition”.
It is of essence to note that, the diversity of perception is evident in the changing social, economic, political and cultural factors historically that created the paradigm shift in the perception and the consequent solutions that have emerged until date globally.
According to a study published by Miles and Parks (1984) it was estimated that 53,000(fifty- three thousand) new houses are needed each day globally to keep pace with demand. Similarly, Wheaton (1983) estimated that providing a 30square-meter of finished house for every poor family globally would consume 25-30 percent of the gross national product (GNP) in most countries. More so, over a billion people globally lack adequate shelter (UNCHS, 2000).
However, from the above the factors influencing housing decisions both as a product and as a process usually have their definitive “thrust” upon which the effective action is predicated.
They may be politically motivated or socially motivated or for-profit motivated. The moderate parlance for today’s housing is the public-private partnership.
Commercially driven housing has its variable thrust, the same applies to social welfare driven housing and more recently the need for partnership between public and private sector.
Therefore, most housing solutions are often derivatives of pre-conceived optimization of resources by professional experts as indicated by Hamdi (1995). These housing solutions all have variables upon which the thrust of housing is predicated, in order to achieve the objectives setout directly or indirectly. The professional experts’ tilt becomes consequential to the outcome of the preferred housing thrust since that is invariable his or her bias for the housing solution rather than a broad theoretical objective viewpoint (Brandsen,2001).Most deductions are often from theories which lack empirical evidence (Priemus,1981).
However, most theoretical exploratory and empirical studies since the 1970’s (after the World Bank and the United Nations interventions initiated globalized framework for member countries) shows they originate from economics and sociology (Aradeon,1978; Pugh, 1991;
Cohen,2004), this accounts for the paucity of architectural theories in housing (Rapopprt, 2001).
Today, it is more clearly understood that housing is not the most complex technical good produced in an industrial society perhaps the most complex economic good to analyze and properly manage for the following characteristics reasons (Angel,2000);
-Housing durability, this measured in decades and the need for its sustenance of quality.
-Housing heterogeneity, measured in terms of design, age, utilities, and diversity of acceptance.
-Housings’ spatial specificity, this is a function of neighbourhood, ecological, sociological, and infrastructural qualities.
-Housings’ extensive regulatory framework, this is achieved by governments’ policy and society in terms of organizational structure of values and acceptance.
The recent inclusion of urban studies and their socio-economic environments has improved the perception of the housing problem in a more inclusive approach in research studies. It is from this standpoint that Turner (1976), and Habraken (1978) set the pace for newer and better formative theories that would tackle the housing problem; their ideas expanded the housing debate beyond ideology and technique and placed design and designing and the role of architects firmly and squarely in a social and political arena. This brought to bear a comprehensive definition of the support paradigm succinct to partnerships and three tenets of for design namely, flexibility, participation and enablement. It was this compelling empirical evidence that suggested a dynamic and incremental activity for housing and its settings. By this, it became clearer that housing problem is generally perceived against the back drop of certain standards and expectations in diverse ways which includes the following; quality, quantity, affordability, building standards, tenure, accessibility to housing and frameworks for institutional participation as well as organizational participation.
However, contextually five general policy objectives have been identified and accepted globally as critical to the perception of the housing problem alongside its variability in terms of thrust, they are; availability, affordability, accessibility, viability and adequacy (Ying.1997).
The availability of housing in relation to the quantity of housing stock benchmarked against the housing need/demand and the supply. This is a jostling between population and available housing for distribution. The same applies to the adequacy of available housing (Quality attribute) in relation to the physical characteristics of the housing environment. (This research is broader in viewpoint than this singular objective of adequacy expressed herein). On housing affordability, households’ ability to convert housing aspirations into effective demand is the focus. In the aspects of households’ financial ability to cater for that need borne out of effective demand this entails the unit house cost hedged against disposable income/wage as well as family life-cycle and tenure. Accessibility entails the housing distribution principle for social equity and economic sense. Who gets what housing and why? The standards vary from employment type, income groups, age group, social status even political will. The fifth general
policy objective is viability. This is the financial life cycle of the housing project, cost recovery and the economic viability. From the foregoing, the major intent of these policy objectives is to ensure that households are able to access quality housing within quality housing environments.
In Nigeria, the perspective centers on a lack of comprehensiveness (Gyuse, 1984). Onibokun (1990) identified eight flaws in the past strategies for tackling the housing problem namely:
-The problem of governments attempt to directly construct and supply housing, -lopsided lending practices in favour of the upper class,
-inadequate infrastructure,
-ineffective programme implementation by government, -narrow conception of housing needs,
-inadequate data base,
-the error of utilizing planning as a game of numbers to impress the public and
-playing the political chess game with housing and its advantage for looting public treasury.
It seems as if the perception in this context is simply to utilize globally prescribed framework to perpetrate local corruption and further subjugate the rights and privileges of the vulnerable.
Although this is not an inference, it is suggestive of the local perception in many ways as would be discussed later under the dimension of the housing problems in Nigeria. The baseline theories for omnibus actions by stakeholders emanate from global perspectives, but as Onibokun (1990) identified, the flaws are in the strategies for policies and implementation. In reality, this research observes that most localized strategies lack specific theories and they are based on the whims of political leaders (Guggler, 1982; Aradeon, 1978).