TECHNICAL REPORT

ON THE
LAYOUT OF A SECTION OF,
FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY,
AKURE, ONDO STATE, NIGERIA.

PREPARED BY:
ADEWUYI SIMEON O.
URP/18/7597

SUBMITTED TO:
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING,
SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY,
FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, AKURE.
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF PLANNING STUDIO VII

LECTURERS-IN-CHARGE
DR. O.O POPOOLA
TPL T. AKINBODE
TPL I.O OLAMIJU
TPL. (MRS) OLA-OMOLE
TPL O. OLUFAYO
TPL (MRS) R.V OLUSANYA
MRS A.F ABIOLA-FALEMU
APRIL, 2021
INTRODUCTION

An inclusive city is a place where all residents, regardless of their background, ethnicity, age, gender, or
socioeconomic status, have equal access to opportunities, services, and resources. Inclusive cities
prioritize diversity, equity, and participation, aiming to create environments where everyone feels
welcome, respected, and empowered to contribute to society. The importance of inclusive cities lies in
fostering social cohesion, economic prosperity, and sustainable development by harnessing the full
potential of all individuals and communities within the urban landscape. By promoting inclusivity, cities
can reduce inequality, enhance quality of life, and promote innovation and creativity.
DEFINING THE INCLUSIVE CITY IN THE CONTEXT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

In the context of urban development, an inclusive city is characterized by policies, planning

strategies, and initiatives that prioritize equity, social justice, and participation. It involves creating
environments where all residents, regardless of their backgrounds or circumstances, can access essential
services, amenities, and opportunities. Inclusive urban development aims to address systemic inequalities,
promote diversity, and empower marginalized communities to actively participate in decision-making
processes. It involves initiatives such as affordable housing, accessible public transportation, inclusive
zoning regulations, equitable access to education and healthcare, as well as efforts to promote social
cohesion and community engagement. The goal is to create cities that are not only economically vibrant
but also socially inclusive, where every resident can thrive and contribute to the overall well-being of the
community.

PRINCIPLES AND GOALS OF INCLUSIVE CITY CONTEXT

The principles of an inclusive city typically revolve around equity, accessibility, diversity, and
participation. The goal is to create a city where all individuals, regardless of their background, identity, or
abilities, have equal access to resources, opportunities, and decision-making processes. This involves
policies and practices that promote social cohesion, economic prosperity, environmental sustainability,
and cultural vibrancy for everyone within the community.The concept of an inclusive city involves
designing urban spaces, infrastructure, services, and policies in a way that prioritizes the needs and rights
of all residents, particularly those who are marginalized or vulnerable. It entails embracing diversity,
fostering social cohesion, and ensuring that no one is left behind in the development and governance of
the city. This includes addressing issues such as affordable housing, accessible transportation, inclusive
education, healthcare, and public spaces, as well as promoting equal employment opportunities and
cultural representation. In essence, an inclusive city seeks to create an environment where everyone feels
valued, respected, and empowered to participate fully in society.

CONPONENT OF INCLUSIVE CITY

Components of an inclusive city can vary depending on the context and specific needs of its population.
However, some common components include:

1. Accessible Infrastructure: This includes transportation, buildings, parks, and public spaces designed to
accommodate people of all ages and abilities.

2. Affordable Housing: Policies and programs to ensure that housing options are available and affordable
for residents across income levels.

3. Inclusive Education: Schools and educational institutions that provide equal opportunities for learning
and support for students from diverse backgrounds and abilities.

4. Healthcare Services: Accessible healthcare facilities and services that address the needs of all residents,
including those from underserved communities.
5. Economic Opportunities: Programs and initiatives to promote inclusive economic development,
entrepreneurship, and job creation, particularly for marginalized groups.

6. Social Services: Support systems and resources to address the needs of vulnerable populations,
including social assistance, mental health services, and support for refugees and immigrants.

7. Cultural Diversity: Celebrating and preserving cultural heritage while promoting cultural exchange and
understanding among different communities. 8. **Community Engagement**: Opportunities for residents
to participate in decision-making processes and civic life, ensuring that diverse voices are heard and
represented.

9. Safety and Security: Measures to ensure the safety and security of all residents, including effective law
enforcement and community policing, as well as initiatives to address violence and discrimination. 10.
Environmental Sustainability: Policies and practices that promote sustainable development, renewable
energy, waste management, and environmental justice, ensuring a healthy and livable environment for
current and future generations.

These components work together to create a city that is inclusive, equitable, and sustainable for all its
residents.

CASE STUDY:

HOME:

The city of Ibadan located in the South-West of Nigeria is the third most populous city in the country.
With a current population of over six million residents, it started out in the 1800’s as a refugee camp with
an estimated 80,000 inhabitants. The close proximity to the country’s economic heart of Lagos and
Ibadan’s unique identity of being the ‘pacesetter’ for the country establishing several firsts including the
first University, first TV station and first skyscraper, has led to rapid urbanization and growth. Yet to
date, urbanization has largely been un-planned with the city not benefiting from a development plan
which has attributed to several challenges now faced by the city, especially to flooding. Ibadan has a long
history of flooding disasters with the most recent in 2011 that caused damage and destruction to critical
infrastructure and buildings, and the loss of lives of hundreds of citizens. This led to the Oyo State
Government to request technical and financial support from the World Bank Group to build back better
the damaged infrastructure and to enhance the city’s resilience to flooding. This brought about the
inception of the Ibadan Urban Flood Management Project (IUFMP) a $200 million project from the
International Development Association (IDA). One of the key components of the project was to finance a
series of strategic studies, namely;

i) the city masterplan,

ii) a solid waste management masterplan,

iii) flood risk management and drainage masterplan.

Combined, these three masterplans would provide the government with a wealth of data rich
tools to assist in decision making to enhance the resilience of the city to becoming a more
sustainable and prosperous city for all citizens.
The city masterplan was launched in early 2016 and from the outset it was set to be a multi-stakeholder
engagement and participatory process throughout the development of the masterplan. By including
several government ministries, academia, technical experts and citizens, it was ensured that the vision for
the masterplan represented the widest possible views and concerns of the residents of Ibadan. Ensuring
that stakeholder engagement was a central tool adopted during the development of the masterplan which
assisted in getting the highest level of ownership from the Government and citizens to initiate the
planning reforms once the masterplan was adopted.

WHAT’S A STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT?

Stakeholder engagement has been defined as “a two-way, continuous process of communication

between a project and each of its stakeholders which continues throughout the life of the project”. This
essential process of stakeholder engagement was adopted for the development of the city masterplan to
help build a consensus for the strategy with support from all stakeholders. The stakeholder engagement
was held by way of holding a series of interviews, workshops, presentations and exhibitions, in which
valuable information and feedback was gained from those who live and work within Ibadan. This meant
giving Ibadan’s residents the opportunity to discuss and debate emerging ideas at all stages of the
masterplan's development. Information from those sessions was fed back into the final iteration of the city
masterplan. It was interesting to contrast the comments made by those with the most pressing local
concerns (such as the need for more public toilets) and the more theoretical approaches to master plan
development (prompting questions about its concentric or multi-polar nature, for example) as raised by
local academics. The insight gained was invaluable in preparing a master plan that was conscious and
inclusive of both community needs and design standards. This approach of stakeholder engagement in
spatial planning is another first for the city however the tremendous efforts can all be undone if the
masterplan is not adopted into law and implemented. Sadly from past experience this is often where the
masterplanning process fails, thankfully to date the commitment from the leadership from Oyo State
Government to continue the momentum to implementation seem positive. workshops for the development
of the masterplan, the World Bank team along with the consultants organized several knowledge
exchanges with cities both within Nigeria and internationally for government officials to gain greater
insights on how to implement such masterplans. Experience has shown us that often the how is a more
complex process than the what. The transfer of knowledge workshops and study tours highlighted three
key areas for the successful implementation of the Ibadan City Masterplan, i) establishing strong
institutions and policies, ii) continuous engagement and updating of the masterplan, and iii) to identify
priority issues with a phased approach with clear financing strategies.

Whilst the Oyo State Government should be commended for their achievements to date on the
inclusive development process for the masterplan, which also includes being recognized and awarded by
the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) the International Excellence of Planning Award, the next steps
of ratifying and implementation can often be seen as the greatest hurdle. Undertaking this holistic
approach has gone a tremendous way of galvanizing decisions makers along with citizens of Ibadan to
take these fundamental next steps to avoid this critical document becoming shelved gaining dust.
CASE STUDY ABROAD:

Inner-city development is a key part of urban development strategies in Germany for sustainable urban
development. Using comparative urbanism as a methodological and theoretical lens, this review paper
reflects on Germany’s experiences with inner-city development. It contextualizes the experiences as
“potential lessons” for four developing countries in Asia and Africa—Pakistan, Ghana, Kenya, and
Rwanda—taking into account the intricacies of inner-city development in these countries. The study
identifies the principles (in the light of challenges) of inner-city development in Germany and argues that
they can be spearheaded in Pakistan, Ghana, Kenya, and Rwanda for sustainable urban development.
However, there must be strong commitment and firmness in planning and policy direction, grounded by
sensitivity to the context realities that shape urban planning and policy analysis. The study contributes to
the emerging discourse on the nexus between inner city and urban planning in developing countries and
grounds future studies on inclusive urban planning interventions in the focal countries.

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

It is known that urban planning is important for promoting sustainable inner-city development. In
this work, we examine Germany’s inner-city planning efforts to learn how they can be implemented in
four developing countries — Pakistan, Ghana, Kenya, and Rwanda — to make the cities in these
countries more livable and sustainable. We found that it is possible for the four developing countries to
learn from Germany, but they need to consider their ‘own’ socio-economic characteristics and urban
planning approaches in developing their inner cities so that such efforts can truly reflect their own needs
and aspirations.The classical model of the compact city shaped by industrial modernity is significantly
waning in many countries, particularly in Europe, which used to serve as the epitome of such a model of
city development (Beck, Citation1999). As a result, the so-called traditionally “closed” well-functioning
defining urban center, the so-called “inner city” that used to permeate divergent key urban services and
served as an economic and socio-cultural hub (Wiegandt, Citation2000) is challenged with magnified and
quite independent urban fringe development. This has led to morphological changes in contemporary
urban growth and development, whose future remains uncertain, and has thus become a development
dilemma for urban planners, developers, and practitioners. The global trend of urban growth and
development is currently depicting a paradigm shift from “cities of industrial modernity” to “cities of new
modernity” rightly captured by Mönninger (Citation1999, p. 7) using an “egg preparation symbolism”: on
the one hand, “fried egg” that connotes expansion of cities after the industrial revolution to represent the
“cities of industrial modernity”, and on the other hand, “scrambled egg” that shows an undefined city
center and fringes without a clear-cut difference to represent “cities of new modernity”, also considered
post-industrial cities (Kunzmann, Citation1997).

The “cities of new modernity” as a model of urban development has negatively affected the
significance of inner cities in many countries in the world as fringe/peripheral communities are becoming
the recipients of urban members. The rapid rate of urbanization is contributing to this (United Nation UN,
Citation2014) because the majority of the world’s cities have been expanding with a population growth
rate of not less than one percent and not greater than five percent (Oswalt & Rieniets, Citation2006; UN-
Habitat, Citation2016). This is still expected to exacerbate in the future where two out of three individuals
are projected to live in urban centers by 2050; Asia and Africa are expected to be the most affected
(United Nation UN, Citation2014). However, does that really mean that inner cities should not be
factored into contemporary urban planning and development approaches? Certainly not, because while
urbanization favors “cities of new modernity”, the physical expansion of cities is known to be faster than
urban population growth (Angel et al., Citation2011) such that per capita living space has increased
instead of decreased (Haase et al., Citation2018). And even in the phase of increasing urbanization, some
cities (about 350–400 in number including notable cities of Rome in Italy and Istanbul in Turkey) across
the globe, especially in the United States, Europe, and Japan are still shrinking (seeing a decreasing
population) (Haase & Schwarz, Citation2016; Necipoğlu, Citation2010). Also, in developing countries,
despite intense urbanization, some urban households are declining in size with members moving out to
live on their own, not in fringe communities, but rather in the inner-city spaces for informal settlements
and slums. This situation is compounded by the lack of formal urban housing stock to accommodate the
ever-increasing number of households in many countries, especially the developing ones (UN-Habitat,
Citation2010a).

The complexities around urban development validate the relevance of inner cities in “cities of
new modernity” to model urban development as developing inner-city spaces can help accommodate the
increasing number of households, and potentially ensure an even spread of urbanization in a sustainable
manner. The development and revitalization of inner cities can increase urban housing stock, promote
social integration and cohesion, reduce land consumption, and facilitate easy access to social amenities
for sustainable urban development—these are clear pointers to the Government of Germany’s interest in
inner-city development (German Federal Institute for Research and Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial
Development BBR, Citation2000). As a result, inner-city development has become an “intentional” urban
development intervention that is spearheaded in Germany. The German Federal Institute for Research and
Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBR (Federal Institute for Research on Building,
Urban Affairs, and Spatial Development) (Citation2013) has argued that it will be a big planning error for
inner-city urban development to be ignored. This is because the complexities of modern urban
development make the inner cities of Germany valuable for sustainable urban development. As a result,
the German government has, in the mix of suburbanization and urban sprawl challenges, made
remarkable progress in accentuating inner-city development in the country’s sustainable urban
development agenda (Hoymann & Goetzke, Citation2016). Notable amongst them are the inner urban
(brownfield) (re)development in Nuremberg and Barfüssergasse-Nordhausen in South-Eastern Germany;
the urban heritage program for the protection and conservation of cultural buildings in the inner cities of
Eastern Germany; and the inner city mixed-land use development intervention in Freiburg in South-
Western Germany (The German Federal, Citation2013; The; German Federal Institute for Research and
Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBR), Citation2000).

From the foregoing, Germany presents itself as an acceptable case and scope for learning that can
inform the intricacies of inner-urban development strategies of other countries, particularly, the
developing ones where inner-city development has received “opaque” attention from city authorities. This
review paper immerses itself into Germany’s experiences of inner-city development to inform inner-
urban development in four developing countries in Asia and Africa–Pakistan, Ghana, Kenya, and
Rwanda. The objectives of the paper are two-fold: (i) To understand the principles and challenges of
inner-city development in Germany; and (ii) To identify how inner-city development in Germany can be
spearheaded in Asia (Pakistan), and Africa (Ghana, Kenya, and Rwanda) for sustainable urban
development. The ultimate end product of this review paper is to bring out relevant lessons from
Germany’s experiences of inner-city development that are contextually relevant to the focal developing
countries to inform sustainable inner-city development with implications for other developing countries
across the globe. With this section exempted, the remaining sections are organized as follows: Literature
review approach (Section 2); inner-urban development principles and challenges in Germany (Section 3);
socio-economic characteristics of the focal countries (Section 4); inner-city development interventions
and challenges in the focal developing countries (Section 5); comparison of Germany and the focal
developing countries to inform their urban planning practices (Section 6); and concluding remarks of the
study (Section 7).

INNER URBAN DEVEOPMENT IN GERMANY

Germany is a federal state with three-tier governmental levels—the federal, state, and municipal
levels. These levels of government work hand-in-hand within a stipulated framework of the country’s
constitution, the Basic Law “Grundgesetz”. In the context of urban planning and development, the federal
government has legislative power in spatial planning, land reallocation, landlord and tenant law, housing
benefit law, and parts of the tax law. Through the Federal Spatial Planning Act ‘Raumordnungsgesetz,”
and the Federal Building Code “Baugesetzbuch,” the federal government “Bund” provides the conditions,
tasks, and guidelines for spatial planning; and lays down the planning guidelines and instruments in
respect of land reallocation respectively. It is within this spectrum that inner urban development and its
underlying measures (principles) are ensured (see: BBSR, Citation2015). Inner urban development
strategies are practically pursued by the municipal governments within the legislative framework
managed by both the federal and state governments and are guided by the following principles.

The first principle is that municipal governments must give priority to inner urban (brownfield)
development before focusing on greenfield development in the peripheries. A survey by the Federal
(Citation2013) showed that over 63,000 hectares of brownfields in inner-city areas are available and can
be utilized for urban development. An approximate 1650 km2 of inner-city areas are potentially available
of which 20 percent and 30 percent are available for short-term and long-term redevelopments
respectively (“Bundesstiftung Baukultur ed, Citation2016). The priority granted to inner urban
(brownfield) development instead of greenfield development is seen as a critical land reduction
instrument, and this has been legitimized in 2013 following the adoption of a new version of Germany’s
national building code-“BauGB.” In relation to this principle, inner-city renewal interventions have taken
place across many German cities including Nuremberg Gostenhof-Ost (with emphasis on inner-city
development that ensures ecological integrity), and Barfüssergasse-Nordhausen (with emphasis on inner-
city redevelopment and attractiveness). It is worth adding that there is an urban development funding
program dubbed “Stadtumbau (Urban Redevelopment) program” that addresses the loss of amenities,
vacancies, and urban wastelands, as well as the stabilization of urban structures and the strengthening of
inner cities for sustainable urban development that conforms with demographic and economic structural
changes.

Also, as a principle, municipal governments must conserve viable existing urban structures and
historic buildings. Germany has a great historical past that has shaped its cities in a very unique manner.
As the German Federal Institute for Research and Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development
(BBR), Citation2000) has revealed, urban renewal projects imply a careful use of existing building fabric
that gives meaning to German cities. This affirms the maintenance of existing structures and historic
buildings to guarantee their use in the current urban structure, and to contribute towards a socially and
environmentally compatible development of local areas. In line with this principle, urban planning must
maintain, redevelop, and modernize viable existing urban infrastructure to meet the socio-cultural and
economic needs of urban members. This is particularly important in municipal areas of Eastern Germany
where inner-city municipalities have old buildings that are still important to create the prerequisites for
economic revitalization instead of their complete demolition. The Urban Architectural Heritage Program
“Städtebaulicher Denkmalschutz” for instance, has been put in place as a financial tool to target broad-
based conservation of architecture of cultural heritage value in historic urban centers in Germany.

In addition, the municipal governments, as a principle, are required to ensure inner urban development
that is characterized by mixed land use with local accessibility—“Urbane Mischgebiet”. This is driven by
the idea of living, working, and enjoying leisure time within the same inner-city neighborhood, enhancing
local walkability and accessibility. The urban development program entitled “Aktive Stadt-und
Ortsteilzentren (Active City and District Centres program) reinvigorates the functional amenities and
diversity of inner cities, town centers and central service areas through a variety of mixed land uses for
liveable urban communities in Germany.

Urban land management in Germany, as a principle, is centered around the development of compact,
functionally diversified, and attractive cities that foster social and economic interactions. This thus calls
for a built environment that is compact and concretizes a sustainable balance of accessible open and green
spaces for social harmony and healthy living within German cities. The Social City Program “Soziale
Stadt” for instance, is promoted through a variety of urban planning measures to improve quality of life
and social cohesion, particularly the disadvantaged neighborhoods—green and accessible open space
compatibility characterized by high residential density and short distances through compact structures are
encouraged. Freiburg, for example, offers an innovative case as one of the successful German cities that
has strengthened its compact urban design with green spaces through its master plans to ensure high-
quality development.

The final principle is that urban natural spaces such as green and open spaces are seen as
important resources for urban ecosystem sustainability and adaptation to climate change. This has led to
their integration into the central urban spaces of German cities. They are also used for recreational
purposes to enhance urban liveability, cooperation, and a healthy population. The country’s urban
development program “Städtisches Grün (Urban Green)” is in place to provide financial resources for
appropriate municipal planning agencies to develop public and green spaces, as well as their maintenance
for sustainability.

While inner urban development in Germany has come with positive gains (reduction in land
consumption, compact and efficient settlement structure, reactivation of cities’ attractiveness, and
reduction of development pressures in the urban interfaces) towards urban sustainability, its pursuance
comes with some challenges. First, the left-aside sites such as brownfields tend to generate revenue
through taxation (for example, taxes on used lands) for strengthening the local economy, making the
redevelopment of such inner-city sites deprive municipal agencies of revenues from unused lands. Also,
there are instances that inner-city areas remain hidden in municipalities’ inventories as they are recorded
by their original dedication as either commercial or residential land use. The resultant outcome is that
their potentials remain buried in the urban planning process, making their (re)development and
transformation warrant extra efforts by planning authorities. It is thus comparably easier to redevelop
existing residential buildings than in inner-city areas. In some cases, old buildings in the inner cities do
not fit well for new uses, with some areas (for example, former industrial sites) having a bad image.
Laudable to add as a challenge is that, in many instances, re-densification in existing urban
neighborhoods is challenged by residents, who persistently kick against such projects proposed and
implemented by urban planners (The German Federal Institute for Research and Building, Urban Affairs
and Spatial Development (BBR), Citation2000). These challenges indicate that for planning interventions
to achieve desired results, they need to cope, adapt, and be resilient to challenges through policy
commitments and firmness—this is what Germany has done to develop its inner-city areas for sound
development.

SOCIO-ECONOMICS CHARACTERISTICS OF FOCAL COUNTRY

Germany, our learning case, is an advanced country with a very strong economy—it has the 4th
largest economy globally lagging behind only the United States, China, and Japan. Also, it is the 3rd
largest export nation, and with a very strong service sector (69.3 percent) that substantially drives its
social (education, health, etc) and economic (job creation, etc) development. The agriculture sector’s
share of gross domestic product (GDP) is below two percent. The GDP per capita of Germany has
generally seen steady growth, increasing by approximately six percent from 2020 to 2021 (KPMG,
Citation2023).Considering Pakistan, it is a lower-middle-income country, faced with severe economic
challenges—poverty, unemployment, inflation, etc. These challenges are a reflection of its long-standing
structural weaknesses. The country is highly consumption-based, with limited productivity-enhancing
investment and exports such that its long-term growth of GDP per capita has generally been low,
characterized by a marginal growth from 5.74 percent in 2021 to 5.97 percent in 2022 (KPMG,
Citation2022; World Bank, Citation2022a). As a result, the economic growth of Pakistan has slowed
down and remains “below potential” in the medium term (World Bank, Citation2022a). The service
sector contributes 58 percent of Pakistan’s GDP making it the biggest sector (KPMG, Citation2022), just
like in Germany. The agriculture sector of Pakistan adds around 19 percent to the economy, employs 38.5
percent of the labor force, and remains a major source of raw materials for several value-added sectors
(Pakistan’s Ministry of Finance, Citation2018).

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, inclusive city development is essential for fostering equitable and sustainable urban
environments. By prioritizing accessibility, affordability, and participation, cities can ensure that all
residents, regardless of background or ability, have equal opportunities to thrive. Collaborative efforts
involving government, community organizations, and citizens are crucial in shaping policies and
initiatives that promote inclusivity and address systemic inequalities. Moving forward, it is imperative
for cities to prioritize inclusive practices in urban planning and development to create vibrant, resilient,
and truly inclusive communities for all.

References
Inner-city development experiences of Germany: Lessons for Pakistan, Ghana, Kenya, and Rwanda in
urban development: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2023.2282487

Smith, A., Johnson, B., & Lee, C. (2020). Promoting inclusivity in urban development: A comprehensive
approach. Journal of Urban Studies, 15(2), 245-260.

"The Inclusive City: A Call to Action" by Toma Bačić and Richard Tomlins.

World Bank Group. "Inclusive Cities for Shared Prosperity: A How-To Guide for Cities to Create Inclusive
Growth." Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2017.