As of 2023, Zimbabwe’s housing backlog stood at a staggering 2 million. This statement has me staring at the wall from time to time. Dumbfounded. We are building at unprecedented rates, yet we seem to not be pulling back that statistic. You would think construction is hard until you see the number of clusters and shopping centres under construction in Harare.
The government launched a litany of well-intentioned programmes and policies, including the National Human Settlements Policy, National Development Strategy 1 (soon 2), and various PPP projects. Given the lack of movement in affordable housing, I would posit that attention is being afforded to the wrong spectrum. Are we playing Jenga, pulling out the wrong blocks?
Zimbabwe’s affordable housing supply faces three primary problems, infrastructure supply, bankability of projects, and liquidity in the market. You cannot buy and build because you cannot afford it out of pocket, there is no servicing in the area, and the bank points to the section where your title deed is supposed to be. Any concerted effort to provide “affordable” housing should tackle those primary problems.
The Gap

The current barrage of would-be solutions has been odd, or perhaps to be light on the matter; the solutions are the easiest to generate. While I laud and do believe that work done to tackle this problem is important, most housing supply in Zimbabwe has come in the form of high-end clusters, land allocations (if you can live in land), and civil servant housing. This is frankly not enough; the problem is not just about building more houses; it is about building homes that are within reach of the average citizen.
The yacht-sized gap between home ownership and the average citizen has borne consequences in cutthroat rental markets and an unsanitary increase in density throughout cities. It is not uncommon to find a property housing four families where regulations would see that number at two at maximum. What of stands and building?
While stands and land are the literal bedrock for housing supply, a few considerations must be assessed before we are satisfied by simply setting aside land. Firstly, having a stand does not guarantee housing, we have a full-blown black market when it comes to council stands to prove this. Some would rather profiteer off of council stands, knowing they will not make as much to build a home for themselves. Quality provision of stands is also pertinent given that for these communities to be legally habitable and viable, infrastructure such as water, power, and sewerage disposal must be in place.
Secondly, home construction is an expensive process much more expensive than our neighbours in the south due to factors I will not discuss here. Also to note is the lack of access to capital on both the demand and supply sides of the table. Without proper access to financing, individuals may struggle to afford the costs associated with building a home on these stands. This lack of capital can further hinder the development and growth of these communities, perpetuating the cycle of inadequate housing.
The issue, in short; we are building for the high-end market while not effectively exercising levers to make affordable housing truly achievable. Housing supply should denote the entire income spectrum; thus, we are half building a bridge. Destination: the moon.
The Bridge

Solutions to the affordable housing backlog lie in solving the fundamentals. Given that there is a common understanding in that infrastructure supply is in many cases a heavy burden for local authorities, finding ways to offload that burden to the private sector whilst finding ways to reduce development costs is key.
Production is attracted to where capital aggregates and, consequently, profits are generated. Reducing development costs for affordable housing developments would attract high-end developers to that side of the spectrum. This brain fart will be another article entirely, but the basis is, if we can find ways to reduce development costs either by reducing tax liability, providing improved opportunity, or providing grants and/or vehicles to ease financing concerns, potential production for affordable housing in the very least eases the supply side of the equation.
Regulatory haste and clarity are also paramount in the whole production chain. It makes no sense to spend 15 years in the halls of state and government to bring about some approvals on a project that benefits all in the supply chain westerly-wink. The process of issuing title deeds is something the state should have mastered by now.
In hindsight to the recent U-turn in title deed issuance in Epworth, the state should be clear in communicating the requirements for title deed issuance but also be flexible in allowing developers to make commitments towards infrastructure installations to unlock value today that can then be used in meeting regulatory requirements.
On the other hand, demand-side solutions to affordable housing supply require special attention in providing bankability of products. Bankability, simply translated to title deeds, allows the market to leap over the valley of illiquidity, creating effective demand in the process. I should say it feels odd consulting clients and having to admit that the market for their new build homes is largely in the diaspora. Local demand should normally dominate on the low end of the market normally.
I understand that analyzing the issue at hand from a desk with my computer is straightforward. On one hand, the current USD regime, for example, is set to end in this decade, making it especially difficult for financiers to plan after that cliff edge. The other hand remains shackled by high construction costs driven by material inflation and importation expenses. I understand the difficulty in navigating that landscape, but that is no excuse to claim to provide affordable housing supply when a mere squint moment reveals that housing is reserved for heavy wallets.
The Way Forward

We need to spend a little more time trying to fix the harder problems in this house of stone. Consolidating housing and construction functions in the state is a good place to begin. Otherwise, the Ministry of Housing and Social Amenities would exist in name only.
What remains clear to me is that the housing crisis Zimbabwe finds itself in will find relief in a capitalistic approach. In no way do I think the government has the capacity, nor should it directly provide housing. It simply is not sustainable, not with the funding problems it finds itself in. The tax regime continues to tighten for corporate and private citizens alike, providing productive loopholes aimed at our most pertinent problems could prove profitable, one might think.
Collective effort is necessary to achieve any sustainable solution in this climate. I for one, also seek to participate in nation building; housing supply is where I think we could make some impact, you and I.
I did not like having to write the post, but it was necessary to allow me to focus on the brain fart hinted at earlier. Take this as an introduction to that article. This may very well become a series. For going over this with me, I’m grateful.