INFLUENCE OF HOUSING DENSITY ON OPEN SPACE

UTILIZATION
THE CASE OF CMC APARTMENTS, ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

This thesis is submitted to the Graduate Programs Director of the Ethiopian Institute
of Architecture, Building Construction and City Development (EiABC), Addis Ababa
University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters of Science Degree
in Housing and Sustainable Development.

By: AMANUEL ALEMU DESTA

Academic advisor:
ELIAS YITBAREK ALEMAYEHU
(PhD, Associate professor)

June, 2020
Addis Ababa
 This thesis is submitted to the Graduate Programs Director of the Ethiopian Institute of
Architecture, Building Construction and City Development (EiABC), Addis Ababa University,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters of Science degree in Housing and
Sustainable Development.

Title of Thesis:
INFLUENCE OF HOUSING DENSITY ON OPEN SPACE UTILIZATION
THE CASE OF CMC APARTMENTS, ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

Author: AMANUEL ALEMU

Date: May 2020

Approved by Board of Examiners:

Elias Yitbarek Alemayehu(PhD)

Ac. Advisor Signature Date

Nebiyou Yonas (PhD

External Examiner Signature Date

Yonas Alemayehu Soressa (MSc)

Internal Examiner Signature Date

Dagnachew Adugna (PhD)

Director, Graduate program Signature Date
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, declare that this thesis is my own and original work and has not
been presented for a degree in any other university, and that all sources of material
used for the thesis have been duly acknowledged, following the scientific guidelines
of the Institute.

Student`s Name: AMANUEL ALEMU DESTA

Email: [email protected]
Signature:

CERTIFICATION:
Here with, I state that AMANUEL ALEMU DESTA has carried out this research work
on the topic entitled “INFLUENCE OF HOUSING DENSITY ON OPEN SPACE
UTILIZATION, THE CASE OF CMC APARTMENTS, ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA” under
my supervision and it is sufficient for submission or defense.

Elias Yitbarek Alemayehu (PhD, Associate professor)

Signature

Date:
 ABSTRACT

The primary focus of this thesis is studying housing density and its influence on open
space utilization, interpreting the subject both conceptually and numerically. The
researcher Purposively selected respondents from seven types of buildings which are
found in CMC compound to study the implications of Housing Density with the residents’
open space utilization. The analysis for this thesis is classified in to two broad sections.
The first section being quantitative in its very nature, uses secondary sources to
calculate density. The later section, links housing density with open space utilization of
the residents by selecting two most common characteristics of density as reference.
These are: Enclosure (Horizontal attribute) and Building height (Vertical attribute).
These are further discussed by contextually defining and classifying the buildings in
the compound for ease of relating density with the residents.

It was found that respondents with enclosed open space utilize open space more than
those which are not enclosed. Highly enclosed neighborhood however, disconnects
spaces resulting in introvert spaces. Additionally, building height increment is found to
discourage residents in using open spaces. The study also discloses numbers
regarding density by using the most common measurements such as Net and Gross
housing density, FAR, BAR. The housing density, based on the results from gross
housing density calculations the housing density of CMC apartment being 24.67
Hu/Ha is below the lowest bench mark set for gross housing density nationally. Hence
low housing density. As far as the international standard for net housing density is
concerned the net housing density being 88.85 Hu/Ha falls under medium density
housing.

The thesis recommends that beyond for the needs for accommodation and density,
it is essential to take in to account the ties these entities have with the residents. Along
with the provision of open spaces building layouts of the compound both in cluster or
building level are important. It is with such detailing that the interests of residents could
be fulfilled.

Key words: housing density, housing density characteristics, open space utilization

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In all humbleness, I am grateful to acknowledge my depth to all those who have

supported me through the course of my thesis.

Foremost, deserving all my thanks and praise is God, the Almighty, for providing me
health and unconditional love to complete my thesis.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my Thesis Advisor Dr. Elias Yitbarek,
for the intellectual support and invaluable guidance I received throughout the course
of this thesis.
I would like to acknowledge my elder brother Abebayehu Alemu, for being my mentor
since my early ages to now, and his wife Haymanot Kinfe for the hospitality and care
they showed me while conducting this research at their place.
My classmates Tilahun, Hana, Misrak, Elham, Misgana, Michael, Betel, Bisrat,
Binyam, Eden, Kalab, Mihretab, Million, Peniel, Philmon, Robel, Safisa and Tadesse,
thank you for the invaluable lessons I took from you which helped me in this thesis.

And finally, it is worth to mention my friends Elsa and Yosef for the emotional support
when I faced hardships while conducting this thesis.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 2
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... 7
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................ 8
ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER – 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 9
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 10
1.2 Statement of the problem .......................................................................................................... 11
1.3 Research objectives .................................................................................................................... 11
1.4 Formulation of Research questions ............................................................................................ 12
1.5 Formulation of Research questions ............................................................................................ 12
1.6 Significance of the study ............................................................................................................. 12
1.7 Limitations of the study .............................................................................................................. 13
1.8 Scope of the study ...................................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER – 2 .............................................................................................................................. 15
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 15
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 15
2.2 Choice of Methods .................................................................................................................. 15
2.3 Choice of case ......................................................................................................................... 16
2.4 Data collection techniques ...................................................................................................... 16
2.5 Sources of Data ....................................................................................................................... 17
2.6 Method of data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 18
2.7 Sample selection ..................................................................................................................... 18
2.8 Organization of the Research .................................................................................................. 21
2.9 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER - 3 ............................................................................................................................... 23
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................. 23
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 23
3.2 Sprawl Urban Development .................................................................................................... 23
3.3 CONCEPT OF COMPACT CITY................................................................................................... 24
3.3.1 Objectives and benefits of compact city ................................................................................. 25
3.3.2 The characteristics of a compact city ...................................................................................... 25
3.3.3 Factors that affect compact city .............................................................................................. 26

3
3.4 THE DENSITY CONCEPT ........................................................................................................... 27
3.4.1 UNDERSTANDING THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF DENSITY .................................................... 28
3.4.2 Physical density ....................................................................................................................... 29
3.4.3 Types of Residential Density ................................................................................................... 29
3.4.4 Gross Residential Density ........................................................................................................ 29
3.4.5 Net residential density ............................................................................................................ 29
3.4.6 MEASURING DENSITY.............................................................................................................. 30
3.4.7 TOOLS FOR MEASURING DENSITY ........................................................................................... 32
3.4.8 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ............................................................................................................. 32
3.4.9 Coverage ................................................................................................................................. 32
3.4.10 Built Up Ratio (BAR) - The total area of building footprint per site area. ............................ 34
3.4.11 INTRODUCTION TO DENSITY CALCULATION............................................................................ 35
3.4.12 Local and international standards ....................................................................................... 36
3.4.13 Spatial location criteria - density guidelines ........................................................................ 37
3.4.14 Density and Urban form ...................................................................................................... 39
Open Space and Housing density ................................................................................................ 41
3.5 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 41
3.6.1 What types of spaces are included? ........................................................................................ 41
3.6.2 TYPES OF OPEN SPACES .......................................................................................................... 42
3.6.3 Constituent elements of place in neighborhood Open Spaces................................................ 43
3.6.4 Physical setting ....................................................................................................................... 43
3.6.5 Activities ................................................................................................................................. 43
3.7. Sense of place attachment, what is it? .................................................................................... 45
3.7.1 Open space utilization as sense of place attachment.............................................................. 46
3.7.2 Characteristics of open space and open space utilization ....................................................... 46
3.7.3 Enclosure and open space utilization ...................................................................................... 47
3.7.4 Building height and open space utilization ............................................................................. 49
CHAPTER - 4 ............................................................................................................................... 51
CONTEXTUAL REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 51
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 51
1.2 About Addis Ababa ..................................................................................................................... 51
1.3 Housing density in Ethiopia ......................................................................................................... 52
1.4 Characteristics of density in Addis Ababa ................................................................................... 53
1.4.1 Enclosure and density ............................................................................................................. 53
1.4.2 Height and Density .................................................................................................................. 53
1.4.3 CMC compound, General info ................................................................................................. 56

4
1.5 About CMC apartment (Cooperativa Muratori e Cementisti) ..................................................... 57
1.6 Typologies in CMC compound ..................................................................................................... 59
CHAPTER – 5 .............................................................................................................................. 60
DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION ......................................................................................... 60
3.2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 60
5.2 Housing density of CMC apartments ....................................................................................... 60
5.2.1 Gross housing density of CMC compound .............................................................................. 60
5.2.2 Net Housing density ................................................................................................................ 61
5.3 Floor Area Ratio ...................................................................................................................... 62
5.3.1 Architecture of CMC buildings ................................................................................................ 62
5.4 Composition of the compound ............................................................................................... 66
5.4.1 Neighborhood level composition ............................................................................................ 66
5.4.2 Plot level composition ............................................................................................................. 67
5.5 Housing density and Residents’ Open Space Utilization ......................................................... 69
5.5.1 Enclosure and open space utilization ...................................................................................... 69
5.5.2 Cluster level enclosure ............................................................................................................ 69
5.5.3 Building level enclosure .......................................................................................................... 72
5.6 The role of Enclosure in defining the types of open spaces .................................................... 73
5.7 Enclosure and open space utilization ...................................................................................... 75
5.7.1 How does Enclosure influence open space utilization?........................................................... 75
5.8 Open space utilization of residents ......................................................................................... 76
5.8.1 Preference by type of open space ........................................................................................... 76
5.8.2 Preference by activities held on open space ........................................................................... 78
5.8.3 Preference by motivation........................................................................................................ 79
5.9 Building height and open space utilization ............................................................................. 79
5.9.1 Composition of CMC apartment, building height .................................................................... 79
5.9.2 Increment of building height: how far from the ground? ....................................................... 80
5.9.3 Increment of height: detachment from outdoor activities?.................................................... 80
CHAPTER – 6 .............................................................................................................................. 82
SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION ......................................................................... 82
3.3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 82
6.2 Housing density....................................................................................................................... 82
6.3 Influence of housing density ................................................................................................... 83
6.3.1 Influence of enclosure............................................................................................................. 83
6.4 Status of open spaces ............................................................................................................. 84
6.5 Influence of building height and open space utilization.......................................................... 85

5
6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................................. 86
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 87
APPENDIX............................................................................................................................................ 90

6
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Organization of the Research................................................ ……………………………21

Figure 2: Gross Residential Density ............................................................................................. 30
Figure 3: Net Residential Density ................................................................................................ 30
Figure 4: Common measures of density ...................................................................................... 31
Figure 5: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .......................................................... ……………………………33
Figure 6: Coverage............................................................................. ……………………………33
Figure 7: Relationship of FAR and Coverage........................................ ……………………………34
Figure 8: Measuring density and its relation with scale ........................ ……………………………36
Figure 9: Methods of densification .............................................................................................. 37
Figure 10: Density of traditional building forms .......................................................................... 39
Figure 11: Types of open Spaces ................................................................................................. 42
Figure 12: Types of open Space ................................................................................................... 43
Figure 13: Diagram of sense of place proposed by Punter and Montgomery ................................. 45
Figure 14: Enclosure and open space........................................................................................... 48
Figure 15: Enclosure value .......................................................................................................... 48
Figure 16: Density via Enclosure & building height in relation with open space............................. 50
Figure 17: Addis Ababa, Administrative boundary ...................................................................... 51
Figure 18: Building Height Vs Housing Density ............................................................................ 54
Figure 19: Location, CMC apartments......................................................................................... 55
Figure 20: CMC compound, building composition ........................................................................ 59
Figure 21: Buildings and plots ..................................................................................................... 58
Figure 22: CMC compound, building composition ....................................................................... 65
Figure 23: CMC compound, Composition of open space, Circulation and buildings. ...................... 66
Figure 24: U-Shaped Enclosure, Cluster level .............................................................................. 70
Figure 25: Rectangular Enclosure, Cluster level ........................................................................... 71
Figure 26: U-Shaped Enclosure, building level............................................................................. 72
Figure 27: Types of open space .................................................................................................. 73
Figure 28: CMC, Building height ................................................................................................. 79

7
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Number of respondents with their respective buildings.................................................. 20

Table 2: Summary of methodology used ............................................. ……………………………22
Table 3: UN-Habitat standards for housing density ..................................................................... 36
Table 4: Ethiopian standards for Gross housing density ............................................................... 37
Table 5: Spatial location criteria - density guidelines ................................................................... 38
Table 6: Advantages and disadvantages of density ...................................................................... 40
Table7: Architectural Elements of open spaces in neighborhood ................................................. 44
Table 8: Activities in open spaces................................................................................................ 44
Table9: Population and Housing Density (Built-up Area) .............................................................. 52
Table 10: National standard of density for Mixed Residences ...................................................... 53
Table11: List of Buildings in CMC compound ............................................................................... 59
Table 12: FAR of CMC Buildings .................................................................................................. 63
Table13: CMC, plot level composition ......................................................................................... 67

8
 ABBREVIATIONS

BAR Built Up to Area Ratio

CMC Cooperativa Muratori e Cementisti

COV Coverage

CSA Central Statistics Agency

FAR Floor Area Ratio

FHC Federal Housing Corporation

HEI stands for height index

HU Housing Unit

MoWUD Ministry of Work and Urban Development

SOP Sense of Place

IHDP Integrated Housing Development Program

9
 CHAPTER – 1

1.1 Introduction

Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, is the densest city in the country(Abaynew and
Wubalem, 2017). The city, on its early years (1800s) was characterized by
constructions that were firmly based on vernacular mud and straw circular huts called
tukuls (Gojjo biet) (Dirk & Anteneh, 2017). The architectural fabric was primarily
featured with very few masonry buildings. The city’s loose structure, including fields
and zones of vegetation, had a rural quality with very low housing density(ibid).

During 1900s, however, new era of building emerged due to activities of foreign
builders that came to the country (ibid). The builders introduced buildings
characterized by simple volumes with more than single floors surrounded by finely
crafted wooden verandahs. This type of construction unlike the traditional ones, had
both horizontal and vertical increments paving its own way for new era of housing
density in the city. The styles of “Addis vernacular”, can still be seen in a number of
preserved noblemen’s palaces. It is beautifully exemplified by buildings like Ras Birru
House, now the Addis Ababa Museum and by commercial buildings in and around the
Arada area built by Armenian builders such as Moussie Minas and Artin Avakian.
These buildings were built for noblemen of that time while the rest of the population
proceeded building those traditional tukuls for long period of time(ibid). Years after
this, the city’s history of housing density has tremendously evolved in length, height
and volume to this date. One of the outcomes of the evolution is the introduction of
mass housing.

This thesis making housing density its primary concern, explores the quantitative
aspects of housing density by selecting one of the gated communities in Addis, known
as CMC apartments. Housing density is a fundamental measure of urban structure
determining the efficiency of a city’s urban footprint, underpinning economic
productivity, environmental sustainably and social inclusion (Burdett et al, 2018).
Parallel to quantifying the housing density, the study also investigates the influence of
housing density on the residents’ open space utilization. To do so, two most common
characters of density viz, Building height (Vertical) and Enclosure (Horizontal) are
employed. Open space utilization is one of the activities under the concept of sense of
place attachment (SOP) which is sufficiently discussed later on the literature review.

10
1.2 Statement of the problem

Nationally, the preference for mode of housing development has been altered in
recent times. Due to scarcity of available land dominantly, the government turned its
focus to vertical developments. Meanwhile, it is important to have records of what has
been replaced, and what came instead of the previous one. In this case, it is
unquestionable to have numerical findings regarding the housing projects that has
been executed so far. Moreover, while introducing such compact housing
development it is important to study the influences of the new development on the
residents since most of the residents are presumed to be highly attached to traditional
neighborhoods. Identifying whether the attributes of housing density in a residential
complex affect the level of the inhabitants’ sense of place attachment is essential. Due
to the population growth and delving in to the modern technological world, mass
construction and mass housing settlements are inevitable. Along with the quantitative
study, the importance of investigation of qualitative link of mass housing developments
with residents’ sense of place attachment is critical. As far as the inevitability of density
is concerned, it is worth to study the change this entity brings on the residents.

1.3 Research objectives

General objective

✓ The primary objective of this thesis is to examine the influence of housing

density on residents’ open space utilization.
Specific objectives

1. To calculate the housing density of CMC apartments.

2. To study the influence of building height of CMC apartments on residents’ open
space utilization.
3. To study the influence of enclosure in CMC apartments on residents’ open
space utilization.

11
1.4 Formulation of Research questions

Based on the scopes and objectives of the research, two research questions are
formulated. The discussion of housing density is impossible without knowing the
quantity regarding the subject. To come up with such numerical findings, various
modes of measurement have to be employed. This is the foundation for the first
research question which intends to reach at numbers concerning density. Density is
not a sole concept, it in one way or another has a link with the residents. Densifying
vertically or horizontally might bring changes residents’ sense of place attachment.
One of the dominant features that density defines is the type of open space.
Densifying vertically opens more spaces up while densifying horizontally encloses
spaces. The tangible links regarding the residents however, has to be empirically
proven. Studying these entities is crucial along with quantifying density. The second
research question stems from this rationale.

1.5 Research questions

1. What is the housing density of CMC apartments?

a) What is the Net housing density of CMC apartments?
b) What is the Gross housing density of CMC apartments?
c) What is the FAR of the buildings in CMC apartments?
d) What is the BAR of the buildings in CMC apartments?
2. How does density influence residents’ open space utilization?
a) How does building height of CMC apartments influence residents’ open
space utilization?
b) How does enclosure influence residents’ open space utilization?

1.6 Significance of the study

The need to residential densification is unambiguous. The IHDP was launched

making density the driving concept (Ministry of Work and Urban Development
(MoWUD), 2013). Mega housing projects including the Eagle hills which proposed to
build 4,000 residential units on 3.6Ha land at La Gare (https://www.lagare.com/project/la-
gare/), Addis Ababa, and the one launched by Federal Housing Corporation to build
16,173 public houses has one subject in common; achieving density (Reporter, 2019).
Behind this rationale however, there should be an empirical evidence to

12
compare what existed and what to be achieved. This study has significance in filling
the gaps of by unveiling data on housing density. Densifying only cannot be a goal as
far as satisfaction of residents is concerned. There has to be sort of responsibility on
the pitfalls of the introduction of mass housing development which are directly related
to residents. The study in this regard, aims to alarm new housing projects to
reconsider the design and attention to the types and extent of provision of open
spaces in mass housing.

1.7 Limitations of the study

Similar to most researches, the common limitations that concern people’s opinion
is getting reliable responses about their feelings and experiences. Furthermore, the
following are the limitations noticed while conducting this study.

I. The officials in FHC could not be able to provide written sources, maps, figures
regarding the housing either because they claim they do not have them or they
are not willing to do so. Such data are generated from different sources like
line map and scaled pictures from web journals. The figures were found from
a booklet that was published during inauguration of the housing project from
the administrator of the compound.
II. The residents in the compound are of four classes. Diplomats and foreign
tenants, Former and current Government officials and ordinary tenants. Half of
the compound residents are ordinary tenants, while the diplomats and foreign
tenants are only 10%, the rest are former and current government officials as
the administrator said. During conducting questionnaire survey there was
difficulties in knocking door to door that this embarrasses the residents. Getting
respondents with this vibe was difficult that the residents are noticed to be
introvert.

13
1.8 Scope of the study

The boundaries for the investigation are founded on the objectives and
research questions raised and are presented as follows.
• Thematic scope: the thematic area of this study is residential density and
open space utilization solely. As population density is often confused with
residential density, the two are entirely different concepts and this study does
not include population density hence it is out of the scope of the study.
• Spatial scope: the location selected for the case of this study is CMC
apartments only.
• Physical scope: buildings of this compound are studied. Physical defining
phenomenon like Enclosure and Building height are incorporated.
• Social scope: residents of the compound, local tenants in particular are the
only targets regardless of age group, sex or class.

14
 CHAPTER – 2
METHODOLOGY
2.1 Introduction

The process is equally important with the result. In types of researches incorporating
both qualitative and quantitative modes of inquiry, the method tend to be mixed. The
reason is multidisciplinary nature of the data required for analysis. Other than density,
background disciplines existed while conducting this study. This phenomenon might
sound this study should be handled holistically. Due to scope limitation however, depth
is preferred over width. These background areas are left, for priority is given to the
primary subject at hand. The following section discusses what methods are preferred
and why they are opted over the others, how they help to gather the data to get the
best results and how these multiple methods work together to execute and present the
gathered data.

2.2 Choice of Methods

The selection for research method, study design and research design are based on
the research questions raised, purpose and nature of the thesis. The two types of
questions raised in this thesis are ‘what’ and ‘How’ respectively. The type of methods
for these types of questions are descriptive and exploratory as far as objective is
concerned. Descriptive method is selected for the housing density calculations. This
is because this method is relevant to describe the situation as it is. Derbissa(2018)
defined descriptive study design as follows:

Descriptive research is the type of research that is primarily concerned with describing
the nature or conditions or the degree of intensity of a factor under investigation. The
emphasis is on portrayal of the overall nature of the subject under study as it is rather
than making deep judgement. (Derbissa, 2018: 49)

The research comprising two related spatial studies, employs both qualitative and
quantitative enquiry methods. The reason is, the thesis first explores numbers in
density calculations, which leads it to quantitative approach and later studies the of
housing density with residents’ open space utilization, which leads to both qualitative

15
and quantitative approach. For the later section the design that is found appropriate is
case study design.
In a case study design the selected ‘case’ becomes the basis of a thorough, holistic
and in-depth exploration of the aspect(s) to find out about (Kumar, 2011). It is an
approach ‘in which a particular instance or a few carefully selected cases are studied
intensively’ (Gilbert, 2008). According to Burns (1997), ‘to qualify as a case study, it
must be a bounded system, an entity in itself. A case study should focus on a bounded
subject/unit that is either very representative or extremely atypical.’ A case study
according to Grinnell (1981), ‘is characterized by a very flexible and open-ended
technique of data collection and analysis’.

2.3 Choice of case

CMC apartment is one of the most unstudied compound regarding housing that there
is no satisfying reason for this. Up on data gathering of written and unwritten sources,
the researcher couldn’t find a single study conducted on the compound. Some authors
has discussed it as sub-sections on their studies or mentioned CMC as photo labeling.
Researches that are most common on housing modalities like that of kebele houses,
condominiums or cooperative houses are repetitive leaving a least attention for this
housing. Moreover, this housing unlike the other housing modalities, is exceptional of
its kind as far as purpose and architectural quality is concerned. The compound also is
the first low-rise gated housing from which rich lessons could be learned. It happened
once in history and it is worth to be studied. This makes the researcher curious and
interested to study this compound as a case.

2.4 Data collection techniques

The first section, which primarily focus on housing density, is entirely desktop study.
Since the purpose of this section is to describe the existing phenomena of housing
density of CMC compound, apart from secondary sources of data used, no primary
sources are incorporated, no questionnaire employed and hence, no respondents
involved. The approach of finally reaching at some numbers makes the section
objective in type. This section is all about Housing density calculation. ‘What’ question
is raised hence, the section deals with numbers concerning defined entities of housing
density which makes it descriptive study.

16
The calculations for the housing density include BAR, FAR and HU/ha which are
completed in reference with figures in National standard documents. For FAR, BAR
and HU/Ha calculations, secondary sources of data such as Site Plan and Floor Plans
are used. For Population/ Ha the 3.7 people/ HH benchmark from CSA(2012) is used.
The later section of this thesis is an exploration. It aims to link the influence of
housing density with open space utilization. How attributes of housing density relate
to the size, type and function of open spaces to be utilized.
In this case, formal interviews with residents by using closed structured
questionnaire is employed. For ease and clarity for the respondents, the questionnaire
was prepared in Amharic. Rather than leaving the questionnaire for the residents to
respond, I used it as an interviewing medium. Discussion with key informants such as
government Officials (FHC Special branch officer) and Administrator of the compound
(Yirgalem) is also involved. Both the interview and discussions are held one to one.
This was done in two approaches. Interviews on open spaces and door to door. People
those are interviewed on open spaces are assumed to be potentially relevant for this
study because they are found accessing open spaces at the moment of the data
collection. This enabled to gather ‘right attribute’ since it is an approach purposefully
conducted on respondents typical the subject in focus (Deribsa, 2018).
The later approach is door to door data collection based on purposefully selected
adequate number of buildings and houses. The hours of interview are held after work
hours in working days and afternoon in the weekends. Observations during different
hours of the day are conducted, sketches of the existing open spaces and activities in
the compound are taken, and photographs of the open spaces and the type of activities
are captured.

2.5 Sources of Data

Both primary and secondary sources of data are employed in this thesis.

Primary sources of data

• The dominant primary data sources are from the interview conducted with the
residents of the compound by using the Amharic version closed and structured
interview.

17
 • Apart from this, informal discussion with key informants in the compound, the
compound administrator and the special branch office officer has been
conducted.
• To manipulate the utilization of open spaces, the time of utilization, the activities
held, the intended function of the open space when designed versus current
use and the mostly used open spaces are identified by personal observation
through the site. During this phase the visual mediums such as photography,
sketches, mapping are used.

Secondary sources of Data

• For housing density calculation, site plan of CMC compound, generic floor
plans, a tabular data of building height, which is later converted in to map are
used. The number of households, the types and buildings with their quantity is
also found from a tabular data published during inauguration of the CMC
compound which was available from the compound administration.
These data are also used to define the housing density variables used in this
thesis namely – Enclosure and Building height.

2.6 Method of data Analysis

The manipulation, which incorporates housing density calculation, is executed by

using AutoCAD, Google Sketch Up and ArcMap software. Here, the line map with
dimensions is used to generate the floorplans and the improved version of the site
plan. The site plan update is conducted by using the google map satellite version.
Moreover, to bring them to the scale of visually explicable medium, they are illustrated
as maps, volumes and graphical representations along with charts and tables.

2.7 Sample selection

The second section of the research is qualitative. On such kind of study,

representation of the entire population is not the concern since the emphasis is looking
for the relevance of the information that the case carry (Deribsa, 2018). Moreover, the
size of the sample gives less sense since the focus of the analysis aims at cases that
bear right attribute or quality than quantity of subjects to be consulted (ibid). Therefore,
the researcher is supposed to comprehend the kind of information, attribute of subjects

18
of the study, size of sample and how the subjects of the inquiry are to be incorporated
(ibid). In this regard, purposive sampling is found appropriate.
The foundation of this sampling as Derbisa (2018) described, is that ‘with sound
judgment about the purpose of an inquiry, researchers can strategically select
adequate cases for a study and organize the information effectively’. In other terms, it
is choosing subjects which are essential typical to the subject in focus (ibid). Based on
these assumptions the researcher made the following strategic comprehensions.
Measuring Open space utilization unlike density calculation, requires knowing trends
of the residents of the study area. To do so, two most common characteristics of
density are selected as independent variables which have potentials of linking it with
open space utilization.
I chose Enclosure (horizontal attribute) and building height (vertical attribute) for this
case. This study incorporates both modes of enquiry viz; Qualitative and Quantitative.
While selecting buildings, the researcher made his decision on the proportions of
numbers of respondents. The decision was based on either point of data saturation or
relevance they have for the study. Moreover, from the chosen buildings, the researcher
took more portions of uppermost floors for these floors satisfy all the aforementioned
required variables and less potions of ground and first floors for responses should also
be included from residents in these floors too.
The number of houses selected from each building differs from building to building
since there are seven type of buildings incorporating the different characters
mentioned above as variables.
The qualitative nature of the sampling is due to the purposive selection of samples that
are assumed to be potentially relevant for the study. In this case, samples are taken
regardless of the house numbers.
Residents in all the seven typologies are involved in this section. The proportion of
number of residents selected is based on the size of housing units the typologies have,
building height and resemblance to other typologies. More number of residents are
sampled from typologies with more number of houses. Buildings with similarities
(building 1 & 2) are assumed as a single typology that studying both results in
redundancy of data that studying one of them satisfies the required data. Generally 90
respondents are involved.

19
 Table 1: Summary of methodology used

No Research Objectives Research Questions Data required to answer your research questions Method of data
Type of data Source of data Method of data analysis
collection
1 Calculating the housing What is the housing - Capturing and -Density calculation
density of CMC apartments. density of CMC -Site plan Secondary sources: gathering pictures -GIS analysis
apartments? -Floor plan -Written records from FHC* -generating 3D -Graphical
• What is the net -3D model (Visual) -Web journals models of each Illustrations[Floor
housing density? -Section -Base map of AA building based on the plans, Figure-ground
• What is the gross [Generated by AA City line map of AA. Maps, Diagrams, 3D]
housing density? Admin.] -using the dimensions
-Microsoft Map [App.] given on the line
• What is the FAR?
• What is the BAR? map(for site and
building boundary)

2 Exploring the influence of How does housing -Quantitative data Primary sources: -Conducting Formal -[Graphs, charts,
housing density on open density influence open -Qualitative data -Unpublished data from interview using tables]_SPSS,XL
space utilization. space utilization of discussion with officials. questionnaire Graphical
residents? -Map manipulation Illustrations[Figure-
-Structured interview with ground Maps,
key informants[tenants] Diagrams, 3D]
-Observation[sketches, -GIS, AutoCAD
Mapping, Photography] manipulation

*Federal Housing Corporation

Table 1: Number of respondents with their respective buildings

S.N Building number Number of respondents

1 1 12
2 3 27
3 4 12
4 5 18
5 6 9
6 7 12
Total 90

Non-
residential

21
2.8 Organization of the Research

THE RESEARCH

PART-I PART-II PART-III PART-IV PART-V

Research questions

Recommendations
Case Study and
INTRODUCTION

Data Analysis
Open space

Methods

Theory

Findings and
Synthesis of
Density Utilization

HU/Ha Enclosure

FAR Building
Height
BAR

Figure 1 : Organization of the Research

21
 CHAPTER - 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
3.1 Introduction

A city, one of the most remarkable innovations of humankind, has changed its form,
pattern and setup tremendously in history. These changes result from various factors,
which can be natural, social, political or manmade. One of them being the
advancements in lifestyles of human beings stimulated different kinds of formal and
informal urban settlements. This at early ages of urban development was primarily
characterized by horizontal expansion, which created diversified patterns of urban
forms. The incremental evolution of these patterns in times made one subject vitally
important. Density. This marks the change in perceptions for human beings to think
vertical developments in addition to horizontal increment of units. Among all urban
growth patterns, compact and sprawl developments are the most common. In this
review, the concepts of compact city, Density and its relation with the outdoor open
spaces are discussed.

3.2 Sprawl Urban Development

The concept of sprawl development has various definitions. Bhatta (2010) defined
urban sprawl as a situation where urban growth adversely affects an urban
environment that is neither an appropriate rural area for agricultural purposes nor a
comfortable urban condition. According to UN-Habitat (2012), urban sprawl is defined
as ‘a spatial phenomenon where a city spreads outward, even beyond its suburbs to
its outskirts. Urban sprawl is also referred to as irresponsible and, often, poorly planned
development (often due to a lack of regulation) that destroys agricultural and natural
land and systems.’

These spatial phenomena of uncontrolled urban expansion is a large consumer of

land, resulting unmanaged consequences of physical growth located on urban
peripheries. This is primarily the result ineffective and poorly planned development
often due to a lack of regulation (UN-Habitat, 2012).

23
3.3 CONCEPT OF COMPACT CITY

Compact city is a high-density built-up area with proximity among various land-use
types (Schwarz, 2010).

It is believed by Scholars that compact cities are one of the most sustainable urban
forms, which exist because of their various urban sustainability characteristics, such as
less car dependency, public transportation promotion, rural development containment,
and natural environment preservation (Livingstone and Authority, 2003). Compact city
preserves natural and rural environments, reduces private vehicle transportation,
promotes public transportation, promotes walking and cycling, improves accessibility to
community facilities, and increases urban vitality (Burton, 2002).
Some opponents, however, accused compact city of suppressing human freedom
and lifestyle and creating problems, such as traffic congestion and air pollution.
Newman and Kenworthy (1999) stated that most of the scholars agree that fuel
consumption for traveling is reduced because of the proximity of various land-use types
in a compact city.
The concept of compact city is related to the shape and pattern of urban features,
such as spatial distribution, land use categories, and spatial pattern of road networks
(Burton et al. 2003). This type of urban pattern has several advantages:
• Less car dependency, thus lower emissions,
• Reduced energy consumption,
• Better public transport services,
• Increased walking and cycling habits, thus healthy community,
• Increased overall accessibility,
• Reuse of infrastructure and previously developed land,
• Regeneration of existing urban areas and urban vitality,
• Higher quality of life,
• Preservation of green spaces,
• Creation of a proper environment for enhanced business activities, and so on.
Unlike sprawl development, the spatial containment strategies of a compact city have
been viewed as a potential solution to the undesirable social and environmental effects,
particularly when compact city is integrated with a suitable planning process
(Neumann, 2005).

24
3.3.1 Objectives and benefits of compact city

The objective of urban compaction is to advance built area and housing population
densities, intensifying urban economic, social and cultural activities, and manipulating
urban size, form and structure and settlement systems. This promotes the search for
the environmental, social and global benefits, derived from concentration of urban
functions (UN-Habitat, 2012). In both the developed and the developing world, the
benefits of a compact city have been proven to be:
• Greater efficiency in the use of land and so a positive impact on a city’s spatial
and ecological footprint, which also means
• Reduction in reliance on cars,
• Lower impacts of urban growth on rural and agricultural lands, and
• Lower non-renewable resource consumption per household.
• Higher population and economic thresholds, which also means
• Increased accessibility to services and amenities as higher economic
thresholds are achieved within any given area,
• Viable and effective public transport provision based on sustainable population
thresholds to support the service,
• Harnessing of agglomeration advantages (for example, shops benefiting from
the customers generated by each other),
• Reduction of time and cost spent travelling due to shortened distances to
destinations,
• Increased social inclusiveness and reduction in social segregation through
designing quality mixed-use areas.
3.3.2 The characteristics of a compact city

Urban compaction is about density, diversity, design, destination and distance to

transit – the so-called 5Ds (UN-Habitat, 2012).
• Increased densities appropriate to context,
• A fine grain of mixed uses (diversity) – in other words, the promotion of the
work-home-services relationship, which includes varying housing typology
options, economic opportunities, multi- functional green spaces and social
facilities,

25
 • Interconnected streets and transport corridors with a focus on pedestrian,
bicycle and public transport orientated design – i.e. “a walkable city”,
• Concentrations of populations and/ or employment – creating destinations with
high levels of accessibility to services to reap the benefits of urban
agglomerations,
• Access and reduced distances (walkable) to public transport options, green
systems and other public facilities.

3.3.3 Factors that affect compact city

Among ambiguous influencing factors that affect the merit of the compact city notion
when applied to the context of developed and developing worlds, three of them are
discussed here. (UN-Habitat, 2012):
• Cultural factors influence the level of socially acceptable space consumption,
which varies widely across the globe. For example, the perception of compact
living in Hong Kong (as an extreme) or Barcelona is vastly different to those
people living in the sprawling suburbs of Johannesburg.
• The way in which households use land also varies significantly.
• The cost of infrastructure provisioning might well decrease with increased
density in the developed world, but it might not be the case in a developing
country with limited capacity. The existence of infrastructure capacity is crucial
in delivering cost-effective development.

26
3.4 THE DENSITY CONCEPT

The word density, a term that applies to different disciplines often leads to confusion,
as it needs definition in our particular case. In this text, Density specifically refers to the
phenomena of urban space.

Arguments still exist about universally accepted definition for density, yet there is
unresolved concepts of perception on the subject and lack of universal means of
measurement. Hence, it has numerous definitions and measurement methods. One
may define density as number people living in an area, the size of buildings on a given
site (floor area ratio/ FAR) or number of houses in an area (housing unit density).
Beside lack of universal means of measurement, vague definitions that lead to
confusion are commonly used. For instance, High density is often confused with high-
rise buildings. The rating like "High, medium and low" degrees of density significantly
vary based on the technique of measurement (FAR, Housing unit) and in the level of
measurement (150HU/ha may be "high" in one context yet it could be "medium" or
"low" in another).

A concern of values is often implied while the concept density is raised. As the term
“High density” is referred for instance, one may picture efficient land use, diverse
communities, and active street life, yet some others might see slums, crime and
poverty. The term “Low density” in similar sense, may give image of home ownership,
pastoral landscapes, and families for some, and sprawl, isolation and weak
homogeneity to others.

These values are outcomes of perceptions of places existing in reality. None of them
however, are inherently related to actual density measurements, since it is difficult to
omit these existing perceptions. In contrary to what some people think, it is possible to
achieve home ownership and families in "high density” areas, and efficient land use
and diverse communities in "low density” developments. This tells us the significance
to separate values and qualitative ideas about density from quantitative measurements
of density (http://densityatlas.org//).

27
3.4.1 UNDERSTANDING THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF DENSITY

What is residential density? Operational Definitions

Structure plan of Addis Ababa (2017) defines housing density as the number of
residential housing units in a designated land area.

Density in this thesis refers to housing density/ residential density and primarily defined
as number of dwelling units (numbers of houses or flats) per hectare (DU/ha) (Towers,
2000). Moreover, for clear and easier understanding of the concept, the classification
by Cheng is used for elaboration.

Cheng(2005), attempted to untangle the intricate concepts of density according to two

perspectives – namely, physical density and perceived density. A thorough
comprehension of these two distinct concepts of density will serve as a basis for
understanding the meaning and concept of density (Cheng, 2005). Though, the primary
area of focus for this review is physical density, it is also important to have the highlights
what perceived density also infers.

28
3.4.2 Physical density

Physical density numerically measures focusing on individuals or physical structures

within given geographical unit (Cheng, 2005). It is an objective, quantitative and neutral
spatial indicator. In practice, however, physical density takes on a real meaning only if
it is applied to a specified scale of reference. The primary type of physical density
selected here is residential density.

3.4.3 Types of Residential Density

The meaning of density cannot be wrapped up with a single statement; there are some
important entities that help us understand housing density in-depth. They can be
considered either as types of density or modes of measurement. Some of them are
listed below.

3.4.4 Gross Residential Density

Gross density means the density of a given area, including infrastructures such as
public roads, public open space and in some instances non-residential development
such as schools and shops. The measure of gross residential density considers the
residential area in its integrity (Towers, 2000). In addition to the area allocated for
residence, it also takes into account nonresidential spaces such as internal roads,
parks, schools, community centers and so on which are meant to serve the local
community. Nevertheless, in practice, it is difficult to clearly define the extent of these
residentially related areas. Some developments may take into account lands for
purposes of serving a wider neighborhood and others may include no developable land
such as steep slopes. This inconsistency of inclusion leads to great ambiguity in gross
density measurement and, in turn, makes comparison difficult(Cheng, 2009).

3.4.5 Net residential density

Refers to the number of dwellings per hectare on land devoted solely to residential
development(Towers, 2000).
Includes: Access roads within the site, Private garden space, Car parking areas,
Incidental open space and landscaping, and Children’s play areas where these are to
be provided.

29
 Excludes: Major and local distributor roads, Primary schools, churches, local
shopping, Open spaces serving a wider area and Significant landscape buffer strips.
(Fhoilsiú and Oifig, 1999)

Figure 2: Gross residential density Figure 3: Net residential density

Source: Illustration redrawn by Vicky Cheng, adapted from Greater London Authority (2003, p11)

As compared to gross density, net density is accurately defined method of

measurement that promotes ease of comparison between developments.
While gross density is more variable and is less accurate in comparisons in large-scale
assessment such as urban areas or entire cities. (Towers, 2000)
• Household density – the total number of households per hectare (HH/ha).
Household – all the people a housing unit serves as their usual place of residence.

3.4.6 MEASURING DENSITY

Density measurement is a complex matter that makes a comparison of various

developments difficult. The main concern while measuring density is that the volume
and extent of the development to be assessed.
The three most commonly used types of measurement include
1) Housing units per hectare,
2) Population per hectare and
3) Floor area ratio (FAR).
Density greatly varies depending on the base land area used in the density calculation
(parcel, block, neighborhood, sub-city and city level). Although these are common
measurement methods in density calculation, without respect to the other measures,

30
they are often used solely. In order to get an accurate depiction, however, it is of great
importance to incorporate all the three. (http://densityatlas.org/measuring/).

For the purpose of density depiction from different perspectives, these three
commonly used measurements are important. This variety enables these

Figure 4:The three common measures of density source:http://densityatlas.org/measuring/

measurements to be used solely on their respective aspects and is crucial to plan a

particular set of needs. FAR is the primary concern of urban planners as housing unit
is for realtors. Similarly, government agencies care most about population numbers,
which are linked to city services and infrastructure needs.

According to UN-habitat, Urban density is explained as the number of people in a

given area or space. Measuring urban density consists of three components:
Population, occupancy and residential density, which are interrelated and mutually
dependent. Though it has similarities with the aforementioned three, it switches FAR
with ‘occupancy density’, which measures People/dwelling unit, or m2 per person. (UN-
Habitat, 2012)

31
3.4.7 TOOLS FOR MEASURING DENSITY

In order to apply the aforementioned methods of density measurement, some tools

are inherently important. Note that, the tools listed below are selected to meet the
preferred measurement outcome of density in this thesis, and it does not imply these
are the only tools.
3.4.8 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of total gross floor area of a development to its site
area. The gross floor area usually takes into account the entire area within the
perimeter of the exterior walls of the building, which includes the thickness of internal
and external walls, stairs, service ducts, lift shafts, all circulation spaces, and so on.
Site area refers to the total lot area of the development.(Cheng, 2007). It is a measure
used by planners, regulators, and developers to discern the intensity of a development.
By itself, however, it is not adequate to define density. FAR conveys a sense of the
bulk or mass of a structure, and is useful in measuring non-residential and mixed-use
density. In planning practice, plot ratio is extensively adopted as a standard indicator
for the regulation of land-use zoning and development control. Different plot ratios for
different types of land uses are often specified in urban master plans as a provision of
mixed land use. Furthermore, maximum plot ratio is often controlled in the master plan
in order to govern the extent of build-up and to prevent overdevelopment (ibid).
In building design, plot ratio is widely used in design briefing and development
budgeting as it reflects the amount of floor area to be built and, hence, can be used to
estimate the quantity of resources required for construction; consequently, it can
forecast the financial balance of investment and returns.

3.4.9 Coverage

Coverage is the relationship between the ground floor area of enclosed buildings and
the site area(http://densityatlas.org/measuring/metrics.shtml). Development scenarios with
similar FAR but different coverage will yield varying types of development: for example,
low-rise or high-rise. The examples below are a typical case of varying perceptions of
density for two different areas with similar FAR.

32
 Figure 5: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) source:http://densityatlas.org/measuring/

Figure 6 :Coverage source:http://densityatlas.org/measuring/

33
 Fig. 7 Relationship of FAR and Coverage source:http://densityatlas.org/measuring/

3.4.10 Built Up to Area Ratio (BAR) - The total area of building footprint per site area.

34
3.4.11 DENSITY CALCULATION

The importance of scale

Understanding the three commonly used density measurement tools is crucial in
actual measurement of spaces. For this thesis the selected units of measures for the
above tools are housing unit per hectare (HU/ha), population per hectare, and Floor
Area Ratio (FAR). To make comparisons easier and proper it is preferable to categorize
developments based on their scale.
Scale, as the term density, has numerous meanings but for this thesis, it refers to
the extent of land being measured. While classifying scales as block/ parcels and
neighborhood, comparisons become difficult because of two reasons. First, there is no
universally accepted definitions for these terms and Second developments reflect their
geographical context, which means these entities vary from location to location or
country to country. In this thesis however, to enable appropriate comparisons only two
focus scales are employed (http://densityatlas.org/measuring/). [A] Block and [B]
Neighborhood.
A. Block or development parcel
This level includes single block or few smaller blocks, which are primarily residential
with few or no supporting services within its boundary. It is important to note that the
as compared to level B, FAR is typically higher in level A. this is because of the
existence of less non-residential space required for smaller sites.

B. Neighborhood
This level comprises a cluster of walkable blocks having local services. Most new
developments in the developing countries are of this size. This clusters being mostly
self-contained, consist some neighborhood services and open spaces.

Though not used in this thesis, another sort of large scale such as District, City or
Region can be incorporated. At this scale, there is a dramatic increment in the elements
that affect density, rendering macro level density measurement less meaningful. FAR
is inapplicable at this level, as there is a massive scale difference across areas.

35
 This defined scale is essential in comparisons of developments because the larger
the land mass, the more non-residential space will exist in a given area - retail, parks,
services, etc., this automatically lowers the housing units, population and FAR, and
total density of an area. Density will usually be "higher" at the "block" scale, so it is
important to make comparisons within their assigned scales.

Fig. 8 Measuring density and its relation with scale

Source: http://densityatlas.org/measuring/
3.4.12 Local and international standards

Within the context of developing country cities, the following residential density ranges
are proposed.
Table-3: UN-Habitat standards for housing density
Range Residential density: dwelling units / ha (net)
Low < 15
Low to medium 15 – 40
Medium 40 – 120
High 120 – 500
Very high > 500

Source: UN Habitat: urban patterns for green economy_ Leveraging density, 2012

36
Table-4: Ethiopian standards for Gross housing density
Type of density Min HU/Ha (Gross) Max HU/Ha (Gross)
Low density mixed 50
Medium density mixed 100
High density mixed 150

Source: structural plan of Addis Ababa, 2017

3.4.13 Spatial location criteria - density guidelines

Fig. 9 Methods of densification

Source: MCA Urban and Environmental Planners. (2007). Settlement Restructuring: An explanatory manual in terms of
the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework

37
 Table-5: Spatial location criteria - density guidelines
Adapted from City of Cape Town. (2009) Cape Town Densification Strategy: Technical Report

Areas to be targeted Specific locations Density guidelines

Particular points, namely: High density
Development / activity • Points of direct access e.g. 120 - 375 du/ha (net)
corridor
• Transport intersections / interchanges
• Places of intense mixeduse
development
At all points along the route, especially: Medium to high density
• Public transport stops/stations e.g. 100 - 375 du/ha (net)
• Route intersections
Activity route • Mixed useareas
• Commercial nodes
At all points along the route, especially: Medium density
• Public transport stops/stations e.g. 100 - 375 du/ha (net)
• Route intersections
Activity street • Mixed use areas
• Commercial nodes

Urban core (major Generally within and abutting the defined higher High density
economic opportunity area) order node or central business district e.g. 120 - 375 du/ha (net)

Generally within and abutting the defined Medium to high density

District and local nodes higher order node e.g. 50 - 250 du/ha (net)
Metropolitan, district and Generally abutting parks, especially large Medium to high density
local parks and/or multifunctional parks e.g. 50 - 250 du/ha (net)
Within areas of focused public sector Medium density
Specific residential areas investment,
e.g. subsidized housing areas e.g. 40 - 120 du/ha (net)
Strive to increase existing
average density through
All single residential areas methods discussed in this
section.

38
3.4.14 Density and Urban form

Density is a quantitative phenomenon of urban form. In our particular case, housing

density is depicted in various building forms. Analysis conducted by a+t research group
on nine different traditional urban forms gives a clear picture about density when it
comes surface. All of them are however, theoretical examples which summarize the
range of possibilities of stacking floor areas on a plot(Fernández P.,Javier s., 2003).
HEI stands for height index, I.e. FAR/COV.

Figure 10: Density of traditional building forms Source: a+t research group

39
 Table-6: Advantages and Disadvantages of density
Increased densities Lower densities
• Decreased land consumption per capita
• Reduced land acquisition costs by reducing land area requirements • Increased privacy
• Reduced development costs due to reduced servicing costs
• Decreased infrastructure and servicing demands • More public open space
• Promotes non-motorized transport
•
Advantages

Reduced land acquisition costs due to cheaper land

• More viable public infrastructure
• Promotes efficient public transport on the periphery
• Encourages efficient natural resource consumption • More affordable for residents
• Encourage efficient energy consumption
• Reduce carbon emissions due to decreased travel distances • due to decreased land costs
• Protect agricultural land from infringement • Greater appeal for residents
• Protect ecosystems from infringement
• Protect biodiversity from infringement • Reduces overcrowding
• Increased access to amenities
• More public open space due to reduced area required for top structures

• Traffic congestion due to increased traffic in a reduced total area • Traffic congestion due to increased need for private
• Reduced privacy due to proximity vehicles
• Increased overcrowding due to proximity • Increased commuting times due to increased distances
• Escalating crime rates due to intensification • Increased commuting costs due to increased distances
• Fewer public open spaces due to competition for land • Increased land consumption per capita
Disadvantages

• Increased construction costs for top structures • Increased land acquisition costs due to increased land
• Opposition by residents area requirements
• Polluted ecosystems due to intensification • Increased infrastructure and servicing demands
• Inflated property prices due to increased • Increased development costs
• development costs and exclusivity • Inflated property prices
• Increased number of cars parked on the street • Public transport inefficiency

Source: Towards more compact South African settlements through informal housing: (Lategan and Cilliers,2011)

40
Open Space and Housing density
3.5 Introduction

The schemes for density manipulation may vary as per the objective of a study to be
conducted. One of the methods is studying density by using figure-ground relationship.
This method is operated by considering the building layout as figure and open spaces
as ground. Here, beyond the need to study the quantitative aspect of these two spatial
entities, there rises an interest to identify the qualitative interrelation between them.
This interest being the one of the primary objectives of this thesis is to explore the
implication of the built environment on the outdoor natural space. I.e. The impact of
housing density on open space utilization. Moreover, this section focuses on the need
to perceive density as a holistic approach of achieving natural habitat along with the
concrete structure. This section aims to give picture on open space within the mass
dwelling compound and its fundamental connection with housing density.

3.6 Definition of open spaces in residential complex

According to Mohamedzadeh (2012), open Space area has been defined as a place
without residences, personal ownership, that is managed by the joint management of
the units (Mohamedzadeh, 2012). It is also defined as any Land with the minimum of
building structure which has been reserved for either passive or active recreation and
provides major or minor recreational facilities, which may be of local or district
significance, which is for the use and enjoyment of the general public (Chaparro &
Daurelio, 2014).
Open space in residential complex includes side spaces in the open fields, pathways
for pedestrians and vehicles, green space, communal spaces, parking, landscapes,
furniture, and directional boards (Sun & Nashmira, 2005).

3.6.1 What types of spaces are included?

The emphasis of the above definition is on both the surrounded and not surrounded
areas and describes open space without building form. Therefore, the primary purpose
of open space in a residential complex is creating an adjustment between the
construction and human density, providing appropriate means of the necessary
framework which allows some activities (Mohamedzadeh, 2012).
Open spaces are designed to meet the needs of the residents, activities, and human
communication, where its elements include access to routes for pedestrians and

41
vehicles, green space, children's playgrounds, places for sitting and rest temporarily
(ibid).
3.6.2 TYPES OF OPEN SPACES

Based on the scale, functions served, restriction and provision of access open spaces
are classified in to Public space, Semi-Public space, Private space and Semi private
space (Chaparro & Daurelio, 2014).
PUBLIC SPACE
Can be defined as an area where everyone can enter without pre-requisite, such as
an entry fee. Typical examples include public squares, parks, streets, public libraries,
street markets, and country parks, etc(ibid)..

SEMI-PUBLIC SPACE
Refers to places that appear to be PubIic spaces but they are in fact privatized spaces.
Despite a Iot of social interactions and even public Iife are going on in these pseudo-
public space, they are not truly pubIic spaces as they do not always fulfil one
fundamental spirit of pubIic space, that the entry be free for everyone(ibid)..

PRIVATE SPACE
It is defined as a space which is owned by particular groups or individuals but not the
community, and is meant for private use. The entry of certain people can theoretically
be restricted by their owners.

SEMI - PRIVATE SPACE

It is defined as a space that is access controlled and accessible to residents and
associated people only. These spaces are not really private since they' re shared, but
because they're usually inaccessible to outsiders, they're not really public either (ibid).

Open space Public space Private space

space space

Figure 11: Types of open Spaces Source: Chaparro & Daurelio, 2014adaptable Morphodynamics

42
 Figure 12: Types of
open space.

3.6.3 Constituent elements of place in neighborhood Open Spaces

So far, according to studies conducted on open spaces by various theorists and

authors, open spaces have their own features from which they are constituted.

3.6.4 Physical setting

Researchers and designers have often been interested on open spaces and their
physical attributes (Bonaiuto et al., 1999, 2006; Abu Ghazzeh, 1999). Table 5
constructed below, based on Norberg-Schulz’s model, represents the physical setting
in neighborhood open spaces. Consequently, four elements of physical setting are
determined as: building architecture (BA) including aesthetic aspect, density and
volume of buildings; extent of open space (EOS) including shape, form and
arrangement of buildings; connection (C) including internal and external, and; green
area (GA) including type of plants used.

3.6.5 Activities

Among number of factors that influence outdoor activities in residential areas, physical
environment influences the activities to varying degrees and in different ways (Abu
Ghazzeh, 1999). According to Gehl, outdoor activities in public spaces, can be divided
into three categories of necessary activities, optional activities, and social activities
each of which exerting different demand on the physical environment (Gehl, 1980).
✓ Necessary activities refer to functional application,
✓ Optional activities refer to recreational interaction and
✓ Social activities refer to environmental interaction which has no determined
specific space and is current in daily life of neighborhood; it is considered as a
kind of passive contact in human environment life.

43
 Table-7: Architectural Elements of open spaces in neighborhood
Elements Open Space
Building Architecture Extent of open spaces Connections Green Area
Approaches
Internal External
-Building Density - Shape of open spaces -Path defining elements -open space position -Type of plants used
Morphology (Perceptual and -Extent of open spaces -Pedestrian way in town -Color and height of
quantitative) (Einifar,2000) -Balance of Building -Street way -Town position in city plans
- Building shape and and open spaces -Street Way -Type of tress
volume -Legibility of -Pedestrian Way
- Building Height edges(Lynch,1981)
- Housing Layout(Abu- -Confined
Ghazzeh,1999) spaces(Lynch,1981)

Topology -Building Geometry -Open space’s -Street’s position in open space -Indicator Residential
-Building Confining position in town -Street’s position with building Plants
Typology - symbol of residential -Environmental -Street’s up-keep -Security in Green
blocks silence -pedestrian and street distinctiveness Area
-Building Aesthetic -Open space Up-keep -Silence -Green symbol of
and care residential area
-Open space’s
security
Morphology: deals with the way of arrangement and inside and outside oneness,
Topology: deals with spatial arrangement through designer’s emphasis on order and
environmental features. It also deals with adjacency, approach routes, centralism, etc.
Typology: deals with conceptual and meaningful part of space and refers to residence
or existence originating from the nature of human beings.

Table-8: Activities in open spaces Source: Gehl, J(1980). Life between buildings

Activity Open space

Necessary -School services –Commercial services -Health care services
Optional -Sport services -Cultural services -Religious services
Social Personal motivation -Social security and culture -Public meeting places
– social interaction -Assembling places
Social similarity -Social identity
-Social Attachment
Time -Length of residence

44
 3.7. Sense of place attachment, what is it?

Meanings

Figure 13: Diagram of sense

of place proposed by Punter
and Montgomery

sense of Reference:
place Carmona,2006:99

Physical
Activity
setting

The sense of place is a mixture of conscious and unconscious emotions and

perceptions. It is a rich concept that reveals the individuals’ method of perception,
experience and expression and imparts meaning to a location (Kashi & Bonyadi,
2013). A physical space does not cause a sense of place per se, but this sensation is
created through interaction between the individual and the place, and among the
individuals (Pretty et al., 2003). In the Gustafson’s model of the meaning of location
(2001), the individual, environment, and others are the main pillars of imparting
meaning to space. The environment and its physical features as a third aspect of the
model of meaning of location, plays the intermediary role in constructing a meaning
for the sense of attachment (Forozandeh & Matlabi, 2011). The factors which form the
sense of place attachment are personal cognitive factors, social factors, and
environmental- physical factors. The sense of attachment is one of the criteria to
assess high-quality environments; and in the architecture and environment design
scope, physical characteristics such as form (color, size, shape, scale) and the
relationship of physical components with provision and emphasis on the social
environment activities, play an important and effective role in constructing the sense
of attachment (Ibid).

45
Definitions

Several definitions and opinions have been given regarding the meaning of the sense
of place. Norberg-Schultz argues that the sense of place is found in places that have
a specified and distinctive character and this distinctive character draws from tangible
things that are characterized by materials, shape, texture and color (Schultz, 1997).
Lynch holds that the sense of place connects between the humans and the locations
and brings about the unity (Lynch, 1981).

According to Shamai, the sense of place persuades the individual to participate in the
location-related activities (Shamai, 1991). Punter divides the factors that generate a
sense of place into three

✓ General categories: physical structure consisting of urban landscape,

scenery, permeability, the shape of construction and urban furniture;
✓ Activity including usages, pedestrian traffic volume, motor vehicle traffic
volume, patterns of behavior, artificial environment, and
✓ Legibility; conceptual including cultural relations, cognitive functions, and
quality evaluation (Punter, 1991).

Sircus argues that the quality of the location, sustainability of the location, and
reliability are the factors that shape the sense of place attachment (Sircus, 1002). With
the growth and development of the world of communications and the progress of
technology and welfare facilities and also upgrading the mankind’s general thinking
level, the intellectuals started to introduce new criteria for the sense of place
attachment.

3.7.1 Open space utilization as sense of place attachment

The theories and disciplines concerning sense of place are numerous. While defining
this concept in way that makes sense on the subject we are dealing, open space
utilization fulfills the characteristics studied by popular theorists. As discussed earlier,
the constituents of open space such as activities, physical setting and scale makes
open space utilization under the category of sense of place attachment.

3.7.2 Characteristics of open space and open space utilization.

On cape town densification policy density has been defined as the increased use of
space both horizontally and vertically, within existing areas/ properties and new

46
developments accompanied by an increased number of units and/or population
thresholds. Two types of increments of space are discussed here vertical (Building
height) and horizontal (Enclosure). The alteration of these attributes in one way or
another defines the type of open space, having its own effect on the open space
utilization of residents. The following section clearly describes this phenomenon.
3.7.3 Enclosure and open space utilization

One of the principles of organizing the urban spaces is enclosing the space. Tavasoli
holds that enclosing the space is the first principle of designing urban places (Tavasoli,
1986). Observing the space hierarchy and taking note of the principles of organizing
the space (and the enclosure issue in particular) are effective in creating and boosting
the sense of place attachment (Matlabi, 2006).
Enclosure means enclosing the space in a physical or symbolic manner that affect the
quality and quantity of the level of enclosure.
D.K. Ching believes that the four vertical planes that fully enclose a space, probably
create the most common and certainly the most powerful kind of space definition in
architecture (Ching, 2004). He holds that the space characteristics of the architecture
depend on the characteristics of the space walls (Ibid).

Trancik, in his famous book Finding Lost Spaces, states that the mental image of the
people and their reaction to the space is influenced by the amount of its enclosure
(Trancik, 1986).

Zucker believes that the urban space is an organized, disciplined, and adorned
structure and it is physically based on the human activities and distinct and clear rules
such as: the relationship between the shape of the body of the surrounding buildings,
similarity or diversity of their shapes, the absolute dimensions of these bodies relative
to the width and length of the enclosed space, the passage angle of the streets that
end at a square, and finally the position and location of historical monuments, pools,
fountains or other 3D elements (Tavasoli & Bonyadi, 1993).

Tuan also holds that open space implies freedom and public realm while the enclosed
space, suggests coziness, security and privacy of the location (Tuan, 1974).

Fritz Steel (1981), argues that the level of enclosure - besides the size of the location,
contrast, proportion, human scale, distance, texture, color, smell, sound and visual
variety- is the most important physical factor affecting sense of place attachment

47
(Steel, 1981). In the urban spaces, enclosure is one of the factors that lead to
reinforcement of the sense of place attachment and the sense of place attachment in
turn creates the identity of the location (Seamon & Jacob, 2008).

Figure 14: Enclosure and open space

The quality of the space enclosure is determined by seven interconnected factors:

size, shape, consistency, height of the body, flooring, architectural characteristics of
the surrounding buildings, and the statue (Hedman & Jaszewski, 2002). The quantity
of space enclosure is essentially calculated according to the distance of the observer’s
eye from the height of the enclosing body (Seyedian & Yeganeh, 2012:48).
The residential complex is the outcome of accumulation of a number of apartments
in the form of one or more urban blocks. Such complexes can replace the old
neighborhoods, but what we face today is a formation called neighborhood unit based
on Western definition wherein the sense of place attachment is less than the sense of
place attachment in the traditional neighborhoods.

Figure 15: Enclosure value

Yi and Champaneri, in their book entitled Synchronicity defined Enclosure as the ratio of
enclosing surfaces to the space enclosed. In simple terms, it is the ratio of surrounding
surfaces to the semi-public or public space within. This parameter defines the

48
morphology of contextualized boundaries that is built around the open space. A higher
enclosure value will mean a highly contained space disconnected front its
neighborhood, while a lower value of enclosure will denote a well-connected or
exposed space. This would imply that a higher value would indicate an intrinsic space
and a lower value would indicate an extrinsic space. Different cultural settings would
require different enclosure values for different kind of spaces.

3.7.4 Building height and open space utilization

Gehl (1996), in his book ‘Life between buildings’ explains how humans are attached
to horizontal level living than the vertical ones.

Everywhere that people move about and are engaged in activities, they do so on
horizontal planes. It is difficult to move upward or downward, difficult to converse
upward or downward, and difficult to look up or down. (Gehl, 1996: 63)

49
Figure 16: Density via Enclosure & building height in relation with open space

source: A Country of Cities_ Building Hyper density and Civic Delight, 2015

50
 CHAPTER - 4
CONTEXTUAL REVIEW
4.1 Introduction

Theories discussed on the section of literature review are contextually discussed

and presented on this section. The objective of this chapter is to give picture of housing
density and related concepts within the domain of the scope in Ethiopian context,
Addis Ababa, particularly. The section then narrates the background of CMC
apartment employing some numbers regarding the compound.

4.2 About Addis Ababa

Ethiopia has nine ethnolinguistically based regions, and two ethnically diverse,
chartered cities, Addis Ababa the capital, and Dire Dawa. Addis Ababa, the capital of
Ethiopia, is home to 25% of the urban population in the country (Urban Age, 2018).
Being the diplomatic capital for the continent, it is one of the fastest growing cities in
Africa. It is the growth engine for Ethiopia and major pillar in the country’s vision to
become a middle-income, carbon-neutral, and resilient economy by 2025. Addis
Ababa is divided in to ten sub city governments which oversee 28 lower-level woredas,
made up of a further 328 neighborhood units (kebeles)(ibid).

Figure 17: Addis Ababa, Administrative boundary source: (World bank, 2015)

51
 4.3 Housing density in Ethiopia

According to World Bank the Ethiopian level of urbanization is reported to be 20%,

which is less than sub-Saharan average which is 40%. This makes the discussion of
urban density shallow. The densest city of the country has been growing in a sparse
manner.
The Coptic Church of St. George and a marketplace (Arada) being the central core of
the city, was dense, while the area between the old imperial palace and the new one,
built in 1934 for Haile Selassie, was less densely built up. The architectural fabric of
the city was featured very few masonry buildings. The traditional dwellings (tukuls)
which are constructed using mixed building techniques and arranged separately in
group marked the city’s appearance. Most areas were also possessed numerous
eucalyptus trees, which were planted at the end of the nineteenth century. The city’s
loose structure, including fields and zones of vegetation, had a rural quality (Hebel &
Angélil, 2009)

This remained character of the city for long period of time. Housing density of the built
up area of Addis Ababa in 2013 was estimated to be around 29 housing units per ha.
Currently the densest city is estimated to have only 32 Hu/Ha which is below the lowest
bench mark set by the structure plan. The table below shows the housing density
towns and cities in Ethiopia.

Table 9: Population and Housing Density (Built-up Area) source: (Abaynew & Wubalem, 2017)

S. City Built-up Area in Population Population density Housing

N (ha) (number of inhabitants/ha) density
Hu/ha
1 Dire Dawa 2,656 285,000 107 25
2 Hawassa 4,207 436,581 109 23
3 Mekelle 8,318 340,852 41 10
4 Jima 4,244 186,147 44 10
5 Dessie 3,711 233,971 64 14
6 Addis Ababa 26,600 3,433,999 130 32

52
Table 10. National standard of density for Mixed Residences Source: AA structure plan, 2017

Minimum Gross Density Location

Mixed Residence (housing units per hectare)
High density mixed residence Centers, corridor, high density mixed
150 Hu/ha
residence zones and commercial areas.
Medium density mixed Mixed residence inside the inner ring road.
residence 100 Hu/ha
Low density mixed residence 50 Hu/ha Mixed residence outside the inner ring road.

4.4 Characteristics of density in Addis Ababa

4.4.1 Enclosure and density

Single-story form of construction is common throughout Addis Ababa (Angélil & Hebel,
2009). The traditional neighborhood has been settling on horizontally built villages,
and towns too (ibid). Studies on horizontal transformation in Addis Ababa show that
Due to different reasons, increasing more attached or detached units is common in
traditional neighborhoods (Alemayehu, 2017). The researches clearly depicted that
this horizontal activity of adding more units to the original house as an act of densifying
houses.

4.4.2 Height and Density

Upon studying a case study, Angélil & Hebel(2009) analyzed the notion of flexible
parameters in the Piazza area, the central part of the capital city, investigating patterns
of density. They observed that when the height and quantity of built substance
increases with respect to the existing topography, new vertical spaces, such as
elevated gardens, open areas, and social interaction points, are provided for functions
unavailable at the ground level. A decrease in the number of inhabitants, however,
corresponds to a decrease in the height and quantity of buildings. This, in turn, frees
up more space on the ground level to accommodate public zones, green spaces, and
lots for urban agriculture.

53
Figure 23: Building Height Vs Housing Density source: (Cities of change , 2009)

54
 Location of Case, CMC Apartments

Addis Ababa Bole Sub-City Woreda 8

About bole Sub-City

Of the ten Sub cities, Bole is
situated in the eastern portion of
the city, where the case CMC is
found. Covering 308,715 ha, the
sub city makes 23.4% of Area of
Addis Ababa. Administratively, it
is divided in to 14 Woredas
containing 503 Neighborhoods.
Figure 19: Location, CMC compound source: Modified from Addis Ababa Masterplan

55
 4.4.3 CMC compound, General info

Table 9: CMC compound basic info

Location : Addis Ababa, Bole Sub-city, Woreda 8, CMC apartments

Area : 20.35 Ha
Land Use : Low density mixed residence
Owner : Federal Housing Corporation
Construction 1992
Dwellings : 502 rental-housing units
: 7 types of building blocks
: 14 Typologies
Population : 1857.4 (estimation: 3.7 person/HH)

56
4.5 About CMC apartment (Cooperativa Muratori e Cementisti)

CMC apartment is one of the gated communities in Addis Ababa. Its original objective
was never realized and it is now a state-owned gated community of the prestige type
run by a state rental agency currently named as Federal Housing Corporation (FHC)
(Yeraswork, 2008). Its purpose of construction and history is outlined by various
authors in journals and books. According toYeraswork (2008), The apartment enclave
was the first large-scale, fortified housing development in Addis Ababa that was pre-
fitted with fences and gates and policed by guards. It was created under the Derg as
a purpose-designed community. The purpose being to keep members of the diplomatic
community and other expatriates out of the inner-and in an enclave of their own. As its
completion in the late- 1980s coincided with the twilight of socialism in Ethiopia, the
purpose-designed community opened its gates as a rental apartment owned and
managed by the state's Rental Housing Agency and home to a disparate group of
residents that afforded its relatively.(Yearswork, 2017)

According to (Angélil & Hebel, 2009)This gated community was established in

1992. It is situated east of Addis Ababa’s city limits. Commissioned by the
communist Derg government, it was built to provide attractive housing to foreign
diplomats. This building project was not merely a friendly gesture – the
concentration of foreigners also promised the government easy control over its
residents.(Hebel, no date)

The narration below about this compound is summarized from the journal ‘A city
shaped by diplomacy’ by Dirk and Anteneh (2017).

Ethiopia underwent a radical change in regime, from 1974 to 1991. The pseudo-
communist military government overthrown the monarchy. Driven by the slogan “land
for the tiller,” It was a time of an ongoing revolution, and conflict persisted through all
of those years. Opposite of the country under Haile Selassie in the preceding decades,
Ethiopia diplomatically became isolated. Relying on its ties to other socialist countries,
the military regime gradually deteriorated its political alliance with the west. Diplomatic
hospitality of the city was challenged the most. The construction industry declined to
what amounted to zero, Opposite to the preceding decades. This time, the government
took the most damaging measure which was 1975 proclamation. According to the

57
proclamation, urban property and extra houses are nationalized, making it illegal to
own more than one house. Discouraged by the ongoing nationalization campaign, the
private sector lost any motivation to build. It was only in the late 1980s that individuals
and cooperatives began to be interested in building residential communities, motivated
by an alarming housing shortage.

Embassies functioned at a bare minimum, and the city’s diplomatic capacity ceased
to evolve. The CMC residential neighborhood located in the eastern part of the city
However, was an exception to the lack of building progress in the diplomatic world of
Addis Ababa. Its purpose of construction was to accommodate all foreign diplomats
and expatriates in a single neighborhood In line with the policies of strict government
control. It also was intended to serve as an enclave where the diplomatic community
could be kept under surveillance. The project was undertaken by the Mengistu
government, prompted by the global reactions to Ethiopia’s disastrous 1985 famine.
The extensive Western media coverage of the famine and the worldwide outpouring
of sympathy made the government look for stricter ways of controlling foreign presence
in the country. A closely watched diplomatic quarter would be an important step
towards achieving this. The government understood that this forced accommodation
had to offer certain luxuries, and commissioned a Western firm to do the project,
instead of builders from the “brotherly” Soviet bloc states that were already active in the
city. The Italian builder CMC, affiliated with the Italian communist party, built a low-
density residential neighborhood that comprises about 500 apartments and two-story
townhouses of varying sizes, in a gated compound. With its distinct prefabricated
construction, controlled details, calm pigmented concrete color, and well-groomed
landscaping, it presented notable architectural qualities as far as housing design was
concerned, qualities which were in fact exceptional in that period. It was only at the end
of the 1980s, in the twilight of the socialist regime, that construction of this
neighborhood could be completed. Thus, contrary to its original purpose of
accommodating the diplomatic community, it was handed over to a state- run housing
rental agency (FHC) and was made available to any tenant who could afford to pay
the steep rent.

58
 4.6 Typologies in CMC compound

Table 11. List of Buildings in CMC compound

Typologies in CMC apartment
Block Typology Height Quantity No of Plot area Built up Units/Block Remark
type houses Area

B1 1 G+1 10 8 0.02 ha*80 145.01 m2 80

B2 1 G+1 4 5 0.042 ha*20 105.11 m2 20
B3 2 G+3 12 12 0.093 ha*12 561.77 m2 144
B4 4 G+3 2 18 0.091 ha*2 579.04 m2 36
B5 2 G+2 4*4=16 6 0.25 ha*4 1193.64 m2 96
B6 2 G+3 12 6 - - 72 Area is included
buildings 7&8
B7 1 G+2 6 6 0.189 ha*3 457.85 m2 36
B8 1 G+2 6 3 0.116 ha*3 383.56 m2 18
Total 14 502

Non-residential Bldgs.

Figure 20: CMC compound, building composition source: Modified from Addis Ababa Masterplan 59
 CHAPTER – 5
DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION
5.1 Introduction

The data collected during the study are presented, analyzed and interpreted in this
section. Making the primary objective to present, both the ‘What’ and ‘How’ questions,
which are raised as research questions, the section highlights the housing density and
how it influenced residents’ trend of open space utilization. The data after its
presentation, is analyzed in a way that enables to draw clear conclusions about the
subject. Moreover, both the qualitative and quantitative data on the two dominant
sections of this thesis are presented by using illustrations, graphs, tables, figures and
maps. These data are presented, analyzed and interpreted based on the responses
of 90 respondents and written sources.
Regarding density calculations, the most popular tools in housing density are
employed. This contains Net and Gross housing density, FAR and BAR calculations.

5.2 Housing density of CMC apartments

CMC compound is one of the gated communities in Addis Ababa. Currently the
compound is spotted under ‘low density mixed residence on the cities’ Master plan
though it is purely a residential development. The housing density calculations for this
compound are carried out in two ways. Gross and net housing density.

5.2.1 Gross housing density of CMC compound

Gross housing density is the number of housing units per total area of the site. Since
the site is of pure residential complex having small commercial units, we take the total
number of houses and divide it by the total site area. The table summarizes the
housing in the compound. (See the tabular and chart summary below)
The number of housing unit equals the number of households in these rental units.

𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑠

𝐺𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 =
total area of the site
502
=
20.35ha
=24.67 Hu/Ha

60
5.2.2 Net Housing density

The more detailed density calculation is under this category. Net housing density
Refers to the number of dwellings per hectare on land devoted solely to residential
development. As shown in the figure below, the building blocks in the compound have
clear boundary of plots they are built on.

𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒

Net housing density =
area devoted for sole housing development
502
=
5.65ha
=88.85 Hu/Ha

Figure 21: buildings and plots

source: Modified from Addis Ababa Masterplan

61
5.3 Floor Area Ratio

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of total gross floor area of a development to its site
area. The gross floor area usually takes into account the entire area within the
perimeter of the exterior walls of the building, which includes the thickness of internal
and external walls, stairs, service ducts, lift shafts, all circulation spaces, and so on.
The geometry of the volume differs from building to building that studying this aspect
of each building is necessary. Before calculating FAR, the next sub section illustrates
the geometric character of each building in CMC apartment.

5.3.1 Architecture of CMC buildings

Buildings in CMC compound have variations in their height, length, geometry and
quantity. There are 14 typologies, 7 type of buildings, 56 blocks and 502 housing units.
Table 12 gives detail on the numbers concerning the buildings. In this section, the
seven types of buildings with their architectural characters are illustrated.

I. The Geometry

The CMC compound is symmetrical in layout and has buildings with seven types of
geometries. The geometries are classified in to four based on their shapes.

a) Linear- straight in layout and are only two story buildings. These are Building
types 1&2.
b) Enclosed square- These are buildings closed in all four sides and have open
down in the middle. Building types 3 & 4 under this category.
c) U-shaped building – only building 5 is under this category and characterized
by four individual blocks connected to each other in a U-shaped configuration.
d) Interlocked buildings- These are two buildings numbered as different blocks
but connected by open down in the middle. Building types 7 & 8 are connected
To building 6. For ease in FAR calculation, I have considered them as a single
building.

The aforementioned building blocks have different FARs since they have different floor
shapes that even alters within a single building. The FAR is calculated by taking the
parcels they are built in. The following table along with the site plan of the compound
elaborates this with numbers and illustrations.

62
 Table 12. FAR of CMC Buildings

BUILDING GEOMETRY (isometric) Basic shape (areal) FAR BAR

Building_1 0.71 0.35

Building_2 0.5 0.25

Building_3 2.1 0.6

Building_4 2.5 0.63

63
BUILDING GEOMETRY Basic shape (areal) FAR BAR

Building_5 1.4 0.47

Building_6_7 0.96 0.24

Building_6_8 1.44 0.33

64
 Typologies in CMC apartment
Block type Typology Height Quantity No of houses Area Units/Block Remark
B1 1 G+1 10 8 145.01 m2 80
B2 1 G+1 4 5 105.11 m2 20
B3 2 G+3 12 12 561.77 m2 144
B4 4 G+3 2 18 579.04 m2 36
B5 2 G+2 4*4=16 6 1193.64 m2 96
B6 2 G+3 12 6 - 72 Area is included
buildings 7&8
B7 1 G+2 6 6 457.85 m2 36
B8 1 G+2 6 3 383.56 m2 18
Total 14 502

Non-residential Bldgs.

Figure 22: CMC compound, building composition source: Modified from Addis Ababa Masterplan

65
5.4 Composition of the compound
5.4.1 Neighborhood level composition

Beside the calculation of net and gross housing density, it is essential to identify the
shares of residence, open space and circulation with in the given area of the
compound. This in addition to the numerical findings, elaborates a clearer picture of
the compound whether compact or sparse in terms of density.
Based on the types of spaces for built up, circulation and public, Semi- public and
private open spaces, CMC compound has the following percentage of composition.

Total Area of public, semi-

public and private open
spaces =10.45 ha, 51%

Total Area for circulation

= 36.4%

Total Built-up area

=2.56 ha
=12.6 %

Figure 23: CMC compound, Composition of open space, Circulation and buildings.
source: Modified from Addis Ababa Masterplan

66
5.4.2 Plot level composition
Plot Plot area Area of
single
block

145.01 m2

Similar to building 1

105.11 m2

561.77 m2

579 m ²

67
Plot Plot area Area of
single block

1193.64 m²

457.85 m²

383.56 m²

68
5.5 Housing density and Residents’ Open Space Utilization

This section explores the current trend of open space utilization in CMC compound
and then links this entity to the characteristics of housing density. The characteristics
selected to define density in this thesis are building height (vertical attribute) and
enclosure (horizontal attribute). Linking these issues needs taking other determinants
in to account because of the assumption that there might be complex backgrounds
other than density. These factors in one way or another might affect open space
utilization. This might include the personal interest to use open space, the absence of
experience to use open space, indoor activity dominance and so on. These broadly
are categories under human behavior and the response to the natural environment.
Since this issue is totally out of the scope of this study it is not addressed accordingly.
However, it is important to understand that these factors have their own role behind the
ultimate agenda. The other determinant is typology. Different utilization patterns are
noticed as typology alters. The level of quality and comfortability of the open spaces is
also the other determinant. In order for the conclusion to be clear and reliable taking
these in to account is crucial. The details are discussed in the following subtopics.

5.5.1 Enclosure and open space utilization

Of the two most common schemes of densification, horizontal increment of units

is the one. Without change of given area, increment of units whether horizontal or
vertical has its influence in defining the type of open space around them. Enclosure in
this case, with efficient use of open space incrementally encloses the area to its
entirety. As studies show, the more the enclosure value the more the residents likely
utilize the area enclosed. In CMC compound it is found that there are two types of
enclosures. Cluster level enclosure and building level enclosure which are discussed
as follows.

5.5.2 Cluster level enclosure

This type of enclosure is formed by two types of buildings that differ by height, by
privacy and geometry. The two types of cluster enclosures identified are:

69
 a) Open U-shaped – as illustrated in the picture, this type of enclosure is open
only in one of the four sides. The rest three sides are composed of building 2
(two sides) and building 1(one side) which are linear buildings, making two of
building 3 blocks at their joint. The faces that are highlighted on blue shows that
they are exposed to the semi-public spaces in the middle. The count of area
highlighted divided by the area of the semi-public space yields the enclosure
value of this cluster. This enclosure has defined the open space in the middle
as semi-public space. Since the compound is symmetrical, there are two
clusters of this type.

Figure 24: U-Shaped Enclosure, Cluster level Modeled by the Author.

Facing surface area

= Enclosure value =
Area of semi−public space

1799.46
=
1703.35

=1.05

70
 b) Closed square shaped
This cluster is similar in layout to the former one except it is closed in all four sides. As
a result the exposure value increases. Building 1 and 2 have private compounds of
their own, they however are incorporated in the enclosure value calculation because
the type of open space taken in to account is semi-public not private.

Figure 25: Rectangular Enclosure,

Cluster level
Modeled by the Author.

Facing Surface
Enclosure value = Area of semi –
public space

2952.44
=
1703.35
=1.73

71
5.5.3 Building level enclosure

Smaller in scale of enclosure is building level enclosure. Building 5, being a U-

shaped connection of four buildings defined a semi- public space in the middle. It is
an example of enclosure formed by length of residence. The basic difference it has
with the former ones is that the building has physical connection to form this U-
shaped configuration while the clusters are fragmented due to the presence of
circulation areas defined on the joints. As far as Enclosure is concerned buildings 1
and 2 has less length than building 5. There are 4 buildings in the compound with
this character.

Figure 26: U-Shaped Enclosure, building level Modeled by the Author.

Total area of bu
Enclosure value =
Area of semi − pu
626.93
=
430

= 1.46

72
5.6 The role of Enclosure in defining the types of open spaces

The building layout by which the blocks arranged defines the open space around
them. Based on the nature of function and design of the compound types of open
spaces in CMC compound are categorized in to three.

 Private open spaces- these are open spaces enclosed in private

compounds and are meant to function solely for the residents in the
compound. Residents in Building 1 & 2 have these type of open spaces.
 Semi- private open spaces- open spaces those are public for anyone
but due to the closeness they have for the buildings around them, they
are meant to function for the residents in those buildings. Due to lack of
familiarity for these open spaces residents other than these buildings
tend not to use them. Building 5 has this type of open space.
 Semi- public open spaces- these are spaces similar to the former one
but has low degree of privacy. They generally are spatially enclosed
between building 1, 2 and building 3.
 Public open spaces- these types of+ open spaces incorporate those,
which are in the middle of the compound and spaces coinciding the
compound’s fence. These are totally public.

Public space Semi-Public space Semi-Public space

Figure 32: Types of open space

Modified by the Author. Public open space = 70715.16 m²
Private open space = 13988
Semi-Public = 19840.15 m²
TOTAL = 104543.31

73
 Private space

Building types 1 & 2 have their private

compounds, hence the type of open
space is private.

Semi- public space

Public space

74
5.7 Enclosure and open space utilization

In addition to the role of defining the type of open spaces, enclosure also influences
the open space utilization pattern of the residents. Based on the layout of the
compound, the proximity between open spaces and residential units vary. This brings
variation on the preference
and frequency of visit of open spaces. The following section numerically explains this
phenomenon.

5.7.1 How does Enclosure influence open space utilization?

As mentioned earlier in the introductory part of this chapter, the variables selected to
measure open space utilization in relation to enclosure are not the only ones. The
notion of this fact helps better understand how the selected variables work. It is found
difficult to compare the buildings in the compound due to three main reasons.
• The type of sampling selected- in purposive sampling as stated in chapter 2
of this thesis, it is the duty of the researcher to decide the number of samples
based on the point of data saturation. The point at which data saturates varies
from building to building resulting the numbers of samples to vary. This makes
difficult to compare entities with different numbers of samples. However,
Percentage comparisons are carried out.
• The parameter selected – enclosure is the parameter selected to measure the
utilization of open space. In building level, only building 5 has this character that
comparing others with this building makes them losers. This implies that the
advantages that building 5 has due to enclosure is absent in other buildings.
Similarly, buildings that form enclosure in a cluster include buildings 1,2 and 3.
buildings other than these are not spatially enclosed either in building or in
cluster.
• Presence of private compounds- though buildings 1 and 2 form enclosure
with building 3 in a cluster, they have private compounds. The availability of
small private open spaces unlike other building types, influenced their utilization
of semi-public spaces.
To measure the intensity of open space utilization the researcher selected three
variables concerning enclosure.

75
5.8 Open space utilization of residents

Open space utilization of residents in CMC compound differs due to several reasons.
Those which are selected as variables here are the bold ones. For ease of analysis,
the preferences of the residents are selected based on the type of open space, the
activities they frequently do and their preference of building type if they were given the
chance. The first two are actual and empirical while the third is a ‘what if’ type question
to identify their interests relating it to open space utilization.

5.8.1 Preference by type of open space

The types of open spaces as spatially illustrated in the previous section, are well
defined and easily recognizable. Spatially, open spaces that are enclosed either in
building or in cluster have proximity to the buildings engulfing them, while buildings
without enclosure are spatially fragmented with lower proximity to the open space
nearby. This phenomenon brings variation in preference of types of open spaces.
Green sitting areas are found in the clusters that form enclosure, building 5 and in the
middle of the compound. Due to proximity all respondents in building 5 prefer to utilize
(sit) the open space immediately after them which is semi-public space. All
Respondents from buildings 6 and 7 also prefer to use the open space nearby which
is public in type. Three forth of the Respondents from building 3 use semi-public space
in the cluster and also public space in the middle of the compound. Building 4 being
physically detached from rest of the pack, is closer to a public space. And finally,
building 1 having private compound, makes its residents interested in staying in the
compound. Other indicator is the utilization of the residents show in the open space
surrounding their block. The graphs supported by the tables depicting numbers in
percentage are presented as follows.
Do you use green sitting areas
provided? Do you use green sitting areas provided?
25 Building Number of % of respondents with their
21
number respondents respective number of sample
20
1 9/12 75
FREQUENCY

15 12 12 3 21/27 77.77
9 9 9
10 4 9/12 75
5 5 12/18 100
0 6 9/9 100
1 3 4 5 6 7 7 12/12 100
House Number Total 63 Av=87.96
BUILDING NUMBER

76
 Do you use open spaces Do you use open spaces surrounding your block?
surrounding your block? Building Number of % of respondents with their
20 18 number respondents respective number of sample
15 1 12/12 100
15
FREQUENCY

12 3 15/27 55.5
9 4 3/12 25
10
6
5 18/18 100
5 3
6 9/9 100
0 7 6/12 50
1 3 4 5 6 7 Total 63 Av=71.75
BUILDING NUMBER

Do you use pen space in the Do you use green sitting areas provided? Yes
center of the compound
Building Number of % of respondents with their
25 21 number respondents respective number of sample
20 1 6/12 50
15 12 12 3 21/27 77.77
9
10 6 4 9/12 75
5 3
5 12/18 66.66
0 6 3/9 33.33
1 3 4 5 6 7
7 12/12 100
House Number Total 63 Av=67.12

The other indicator of utilization is the frequency of visit of open spaces. According to
the respondents, the most frequently used types of open space are sitting green areas
and open space in the center of the compound. Residents seldom tend to use
walkways. Though it is difficult to compute and compare the intensity of utilization of
residents of various building types by the given number of sample size, it was easy to
identify their preference of open spaces. The bar graph below clearly shows that
respondents from buildings 3, 5 and 1 daily visit open spaces.

Frequency of visit

Daily twice a week 3 times a week 5 times a week 4 times a week

16 15

12 77

6 6
 14
12
Respondents
10
8
6
4
2
0

5.8.2 Preference by activities held on open space

Preferences of open spaces also depend on the choice of activities residents carry
out. The most rated activities held by the respondents include walking (which is
held on walkways), watching others, playing, physical exercise, riding bicycle and
using mobile. Playing and watching others mostly occurs on the field located in the
middle of the compound and next in rank is enclosed semi-public spaces. While
physical exercise, walking and riding bicycle are held on walkways that surrounds
the compound and near the buildings. None of the respondents said they prefer
the public space coinciding the fence of the compound.

Activities held on open spaces

Sitting 54.8%
Physical excercise 67.7%
Companionship 9.7%
Riding bicycle? 61.3%
Walking with family or friends 87.1%
Using Mobile 61.3%
Monitoring Children 51.6%
Playing 67.7%
Watching others 77.4%
Birthday 51.6%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

78
5.8.3 Preference by motivation

The combination of the former two brings motivation for utilization of open spaces

Motivation around them. According to the data

120.0% collected the dominant motivations of
96.8%
100.0% 87.1% the residents are sense of ownership
80.0% 64.5%
54.8% and comfortability of the open spaces.
60.0%
40.0% Moreover, all the respondents said the
20.0% open space is also adequate. Next in
0.0%
rank are activities that cannot be
carried out indoors and socializing.

5.9 Building height and open space utilization

The second characteristics selected is vertical entity defining density. This section
interprets the influence of height on open space utilization. One of the reasons for the
selection of this entity is that the maximum height of building is 4 story hence, the only
vertical circulation is staircase. For ease of understanding the compound regarding
building height, the composition of the compound is described as follows.

5.9.1 Composition of CMC apartment, building height

The heights of buildings in CMC compound are classified in to three.

• G+1 town houses- these are buildings within private compound. Building 1
and 2 are under this category
• G+2 buildings- these are of two kind. Building 5 and Buildings that are attached
to building 6. Buildings 7 and 8 are this kind.
• G+3 Buildings- these are also of two types. Detached buildings (Buildings 3 &
Building 4) and attached building 6 which is attached to building 7 and 8 G+3
G+2
G+1
G+0

Figure 33: CMC, Building height

79
5.9.2 Increment of building height: how far from the ground?

As illustrated on the section of the compound the buildings in CMC compound are low
rise (maximum G+3) having only staircase as vertical circulation. This in contrary to
the accustomed neighborhood that has high ground level attachment might bring
variation on the sense of place of the residents due to several reasons resulted from
increment of height. Regarding increment of building height more than half of the
respondents said their open space utilization wasn’t influenced. The table below shows
that buildings with 2 story said they were never influenced by increment of height while
those with more than 2 story building said they were influenced to some extent. The
table below summarizes the details.

Influence of building height on open space utilization

Building Number of % of respondents with their
number respondents respective number of sample
1 12/12 100
3 21/27 77.77
4 9/12 75
5 12/18 66.66
6 3/9 33.33
7 6/12 50
Total 63 Av=67.12

5.9.3 Increment of height: detachment from outdoor activities?

The other reason that ground floors are preferred over the others is that its closeness
to ground level living, which highly promotes outdoor activities.

If You were on the ground floor do you think your open space utilization
increase?

yes no

30
25
20
18
15
12 0
10
12 9 6 12
5 9
3 6 3
0 0
1 3 4 5 6 7

80
As clearly indicated on the graph 63.3% of the respondents said they would have the
same open space utilization if they were on the ground floor. Similarly, half of the
respondents said they prefer to live on the ground floor.

Building % of respondents with their

number respective number of sample
Ground 50
First 7
Second 23
Third 20
Total 100%

While asked their reason for preference of ground floor only 16% of the respondents
are related to ground attachment and 63.3% of the respondents said it will give them
access to open space.

Reason for prefering ground floor

Ground attachment Getting bored of stair I prefer to be in the middle

4
3 3
3
2 2 2 22
2
1 1
1
00 0 00 0 00 0
0

81
 CHAPTER – 6
SYNTHESIS OF FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
3.3 Introduction

The thesis focusing on the spatial entities of housing, set two research questions.
These questions being addressed on analysis with numerically supported and
narrated data, have their own implications both qualitatively and quantitatively. This
section makes its primary focus on summarizing the key findings of the research, in a
way that unfolds new knowledge on CMC compound regarding density and its
influence on open space utilization. Moreover, the section describes the implications
of the numbers concerning housing density and then explains its influences based on
the data analyzed and presented using the purposively selected samples that
represent targeted population.

6.2 Housing density

The housing density, based on the results from both net and gross housing density
calculations confirms that the housing density of CMC apartment being 24.67 Hu/Ha
is below the lowest bench mark set for housing density nationally. The smallest bench
mark set nationally (regarding low density mixed residence) is 50-99 HU/Ha. Hence
the housing density is low. But as far as the international standard is concerned the
net housing density being 88.85 falls under medium density housing. The medium
range in international standard set by UN-HABITAT is 40-120 Hu/Ha.
The results of both calculations (Net housing Density =88.85 Hu/Ha, Gross housing
density= 24.67 Hu/Ha) and the built up area ratio shows that the residential
development is sparse, showing high proportion of the land in the compound as
unbuilt.
FAR of the buildings couldn’t convey the fact of compound’s sparse nature. As
depicted on the previous section, buildings are built on their own plots, having low
building height (max: G+3) which also results in low FAR less than 2.
The low building height also tells that the density in the compound is achieved both
horizontally and vertically. As far as proportion is concerned however, the density is
due to building height than horizontal development/ Enclosure.
All the population within the compound lives as a tenant, hence no additional
households per housing unit.

82
The composition of the compound also shows that more than half of the compound is
occupied by open spaces ranging from private to public. The built up space makes up
only quarter of the compound making the rest circulation space. This is the other
reason for the residential sparse development within the compound.

6.3 Influence of housing density

The two selected characteristics of housing density namely building height and
enclosure are found to have influence on the utilization of open spaces. The open
space utilizations show variations in building and cluster level enclosures.

6.3.1 Influence of enclosure

Respondents from both cluster level and building level enclosed housing units show a
better open space utilization. only building 5 forms building level enclosure while
building 1 and 3 form cluster level enclosures (see chapter 5).

a. Cluster level enclosure

In both the U-shaped and rectangular cluster level enclosures the residents have
shown differences on open space utilization as compared to building level
enclosures due to the following reasons

✓ Proximity of the semi-public spaces to the units. As far the closeness of the
open spaces is concerned, spaces enclosed in building are closer than spaces
enclosed in cluster.
✓ Housing units with private compounds utilize private open space, resulting in
decreased trend of semi-public spaces

Respondents form Building 5 showed better utilization of open spaces as far as

semi-public and public open space utilization is concerned while Buildings 1 and 5
prefer to use open spaces surrounding their block.

Frequencies of respondents to visit open spaces is high on buildings 3 and 5, while

respondents fro, building 1 have a less tendencies to frequently use open spaces.
Both the cluster level and building level enclosures can be summarized in the
following graph.

83
 Open space utilization_Preference
Building 1
100
80
60
40
20
0

Building 5 Building 3

Nearby open space Open space in the middle

Open space utilization_Activities

Building 1
100
80
60
40
20
0

Building 5 Building 3

Sitting Physical exercise Playing Walking

6.4 Status of open spaces

Beyond checking the open space utilization, it is necessary to identify the open spaces
in the compound are up to the standard.

✓ Size- the size of open spaces is more than adequate covering more than half (51%)
of the area in the compound. Based on the national standard 30% of a
neighborhood should be green and open spaces.
✓ Variety and proportion – as identified as per the definitions of open spaces the
open spaces in the compound has all the varieties ranging from private open
spaces to public space. Of which 67% is public,18.9% semi-public and 13.3 private
open spaces.

84
✓ Location and orientation- as clearly indicated on the map showing the types of
open space the compound has one in the middle of the compound which is fair in
distance for the buildings in the compound and along the fence of the compound
engulfing different semi-public spaces. The private spaces are within the private
compounds.
✓ Rating for user-friendliness and comfort- up on observation the open spaces
are found to be user-friendly and comfortable with adequate green coverage. All
the respondents confirmed this while data collection

6.5 Influence of building height and open space utilization

The building height in the compound is low and the only available vertical
circulation is staircase as indicated on chapter 5. While conducting data
analysis all of the respondents from building 1 said building height never
affected their open space utilization.

✓ More than half of buildings with stories 3 and above replied height has
influenced their open space utilization.
✓ In average 67.12% of residents from these buildings replied height
matters.

Increment in building height likely influences the open space utilization

incrementally.

85
6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS

CMC compound, being exceptional in Ethiopian housing history, happened only

once. The need for recommendations in this case seems ambiguous because the
construction has been completed with excellent level of quality both regarding
architecture and provision of open space. However, lessons can be derived from
the findings which are crucial for housing developments ahead both for public and
private sectors. The following points are important according to the author.

✓ For architects, urban planners and designers, due to the inevitability of

housing density, incorporating the recreational and social aspirations of
residents is essential. This can be achieved via provision of adequate sized,
user-friendly, comfortable and various types of open spaces with in the
compounds of residential developments.
✓ While designing the building blocks employing different architectural styles
that have pleasant exteriors, forms and layouts in building and cluster level
increases the level of preferences for the residents concerning the utilization
of the compound as a whole.
✓ Well planned circulations in the compound also enhance the residents level
of interests to physical exercises, walking and socializing activities.
✓ Increment of height should be planned along with vertical circulation
alternatives.
✓ Improving the quality of open spaces between the blocks in a residential
complex or outdoor environment is crucial since the desirability of improving
these areas is directly related to the residential quality of living standards.

86
 Bibliography

Abaynew W. & Wubalem S. (2017). ‘Assessment on Urban Density and Land Use Efficiency in the
Ethiopian Cities.’ Civil and Environmental Research, 7-15. Retrieved from:
http://land.igad.int/index.php/documents-1/countries/ethiopia/urbanization-1/380
assessment-on-urban-density-and-land-use-efficiency-in-the-ethiopian-cities/file

Abu Ghazzeh,T.(1999). ‘Housing layout, social interaction and place of contact in the town of Abu
Nuseir, Jordan’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol19, pp 41- 73.
Alemayehu, H. B. (2015). SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS'S EXTENSIONS, The case of residential
houses in Woreda 2, Akaki-Kality sub city, Addis Ababa. Addis Ababa.
Bank, W. (2015). Ethiopia Urbanization Review: Urban Institutions for a Middle-Income Ethiopia.
Bhatta, B. (2010). Analysis of urban growth and sprawl from remote sensing data. Springer Science &
Business Media.
Bonaiuto M,Aiello A,Perugini M,Bonnes M and Ercolani P.(1999).’Multidimensional perception of
residential Environment Quality and neighborhood attachment in the urban
environment’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol19, pp 331-352.
Bonaiuto M.,Fornara F. and Bonnes M.(2006) ‘Perceived residential environment quality in
middle- and low-extension italian cities’, Revue européenne de psychologie
appliquée56,pp23-34.
Burns, Robert B., (1997). Introduction to Research Methods (2nd edition). Melbourne, Longman
Cheshire.

Burton, E. (2002). Measuring urban compactness in UK towns and cities. Environment and Planning B,
29(2), 219–250.

Burton, E., Jenks, M., & Williams, K. (2003). The compact city: A sustainable urban form? Routledge.

Case Study: Ekbatan Town in Tehran Metropolis.’ pp 11-20.

Central Statistics Agency, ICF International. (2012). Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey. Addis
Ababa

Chaparro F. & Daurelio S. (2014). Adaptable Morphodvnamics. M.Sc dissertation.

Cheng V. (2009). Understanding Density and High Density. Designing High-Density Cities for Social
and Environmental Sustainability. Pp. 3-17.

D.K. Ching, F. (1998). The Architecture of the Space Form and the Order.
Density Atlas: [On-line]. Available at http://densityatlas.org//. Access date: (16/0119).

Derbisa, A. (2018). Research Methodology: Handbook for research students and practitioners. Addis
Ababa. Mega.

Dirk van G & Anteneh T. (2015). ‘A city shaped by diplomacy.’ ABE Journal, pp. 17-19. Retrieved from
URL: http://journals.openedition.org/abe/4038;DOI:10.4000/abe.4038

Eagle hill La Gare [on-line] Retrieved from: https://www.lagare.com/project/la-gare/

Fernández P, Javier M, s. and Alex O. (2003). ‘Why density?’ a+t Architecture publishers. Pp 29-40
Fhoilsiú A. & Oifig S. (1999). ‘Residential Density Guidelines for Planning Authorities.’ The Stationery
Office.1-14.

87
Forouzande A & Motallebi G. (2012). ‘The Role of Open Spaces in Neighborhood Attachment
Gehl, J. (1996). Life between Buildings-Using Public Space, Arkitektens Forlag, Copenhagen.
Gilbert, Nigel (ed.). (2008). Researching Social Life (3rd edition). London.Sage.

Grinnell, Richard Jr (ed.). (1981). Social Work Research and Evaluation. Itasca, IL, F.E. Peacock.

Hebel D. & Angélil M. (2009). Cities of change: Addis Ababa: transformation strategies for urban
territories in the 21st century. Berlin. Birkhäuser
Hedman, R. & Yazoski, A. (2002). The Principles of Urban Design,
Journal of Ethiopian Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1/2, Special Thematic Issue on Contemporary
Urban Dynamics (June-December 2008), pp. 111-141
Kashi, H & Bonyadi, N. (2013). Explaining the Place Identity – Sense of Place Model and Studying
its Different Elements and Aspects. Fine Arts Journal, Vol.18, No.3, pp43-52.
Kumar, Ranjit. (2011). RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: a step-by-step guide for beginners. New Delhi, Sage

Livingstone, K., & Authority, G. L. (2003). Housing for a compact city. Greater London authority.

Louis L. & Cilliers J. (2016). Towards more compact South African settlements through informal
housing: The case of backyard densification in Bridgton and Bongolethu, Oudtshoorn. P3
Lynch, K. (1997). Good Shape of the City Theory.
Matlabi, G. (2006) Recognizing the Ratio of Form and Function in Architecture, Fine Art Magazine,
No. 25, 64-55.
Ministry of Urban Development, Housing and Construction (MUDHCo). (2014) National Report on
Housing and Sustainable Urban Development., Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Mohammadzadeh, R.(2011). Assessment of Spatial and Physical Factors Quality of Sahand New
Town residential Communities Open (Outdoor) Spaces. Journal Fine Arts and Architecture
magazine articles Tehran university Volume 3, Number 47, Fall 2012, pp 29- 38.
Neumann, M. (2005). The Compact City Fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 11-26.
Available at: http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/25/1/11

Newman, P., & Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability and cities: Overcoming automobile dependence.
Island Press.

Pretty G, Chipuer H & Bramston P. (2003). Sense of place among adolescence and adults in two
rural Australian towns: the discriminating features of place attachment, sense of
community and place dependence in relation to place identity, J. Environ Psychol, NO.
23, pp 273-287.
Punter, J. (1991). Participation in the design of urban space, Landscape Design. No. 200, pp 24-27.
Schultz, N. (1997). The Phenomenon of Place. Princeton Architectural Press. New York.
Schwarz, N. (2010). ‘Urban form revisited—Selecting indicators for characterizing European cities.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 96 (1), 29–47.
Seamon, David & Jacob, Sowers. (2008) Place and Placelessness. Edward Relph, London: Sage.
Seyedian, Seydali & Aabaft Yeganeh,Mansor (winter 2007) Revision of the Physical Enclosure
Concept in the Urban Space, Road & Building Bimonthly, No. 46, 46-54.
Shamai, S. (1991). Sense of Place: An Empirical Measurement, Israel, Geoforum. Vol. 22,
pp 347-358.
Sircus, J. (2001). Invented Places, Prospect NO. 81, Sept/Oct, pp 30-35.

88
 Sun S & Nashmira G. (2006).” A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high rise
housing” Landscape and urban living, vol.78, pp 193-204
Tavasoli, M. (1986). Principles and Methods of Urban Design and Residential Spaces in Iran,
Center of Urbanism and Architecture Studies and Research of Iran, 1st ed., Tehran.
Tavasoli, Mahmood & Bonyadi, Nasser. (1993). The Design of Urban Space, Center of Urbanism
and Architecture Studies and Research of Iran. 2nd ed., Tehran.
The reporter Ethiopia (6/18/2019). Available at: thereporterethiopia.com/article/mega-housing-
project-cost-33-bln-birr

Towers G. (2002). ‘The Implications of Housing Density’. Cibworld. pp 145-152.

Trancik, R. (1986). Finding Lost Space. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Tuan, Yi- Fu (1974). Topophili, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
UN-HABITAT. (2012). Urban patterns for a green economy: leveraging density. Nairobi. Retrieved
from: www.unhabitat.org.
URBAN AGE. (2018). Developing urban futures. Addis Ababa. Available at: urbanage.lsecities.net
World Bank Group. (2015). ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA Enhancing Urban Resilience
Yeraswerk A. (2008). The Gated Communities of Inner-City Addis Ababa.

89
 APPENDIX

Questionnaire: Impact of residential density on open space utilization

The objective of this interview is to assess and evaluate the impact of housing density
on open space utilization. The focal areas of this interview are Comparison of former
trends of open space utilization with the current one, Assessing the impacts of
enclosure value, Shared external spaces, configuration of building, Shared external
spaces, Access from dwellings and Networks.
Part 1. Household data
[1] Age [2] sex  Male  Female

[3] Block number [4] Floor level

[5] Household size M F

[6] Number of children [<18]

[7] When did you came here? Month year

[8] When did you start to live here in CMC apartments? Month year

[9] In what type of dwelling do you used to live before you moved to here?

1. Private compound  G+0  G+1  G+2  G+3

2. Condominium on Floor Level  one  Two  Three  Four 

3. Apartment Floor Level  one  Two  Three  Four 

4. Cooperative houses  Entire house  G+

 Portion of the house Floors
5. Kebele house
6. Other

Part 2. Open space Utilization [Former trends]

[10] What type of open space did you use most?
 Private, enclosed in my compound
 Semi-private, shared with neighbor
 Semi-public, shared with neighborhood
 Public, outside my compound, nearby public spaces, open spaces in the city
[11] What was the size of open space around your former dwelling?

 Large  Medium   Adequate   Small   None

[12] What activities do you do in open spaces? [Rating 1-4]

  Socializing 1-4[ ]
  Observing others 1-4[ ]
  Playing [Children activity] 1-4[ ]
  Supervision of children playing 1-4[ ]
  Solo mobile phone use [Wi-Fi internet] 1-4[ ]

90
   walking with children, family or friends 1-4[ ]
  Cycling 1-4[ ]
  Hanging out
  Doing physical exercises [jogging, running, aerobics...] 1-4[ ]
  Sitting 1-4[ ]
  Domestic chores [washing the car, mending a bike, washing and gardening.] 1-4[ ]

[13] What ways of moving do you use in open spaces?

  On foot
  Bicycle
  Pushchair [babies]
  Motorcycle
  Skate
  Wheelchair
  others
[14] How often do you visit open spaces?

 Every day
 times a week
 times a month
 ________times a year

[15] What is your favorite time to visit open spaces?

 Working day, after work/ school [after 11;30LT evening]
 Working day, before work/ school [after 12:00LT morning]
 Saturday, morning
 Saturday evening
 Sunday morning
 Sunday evening
 Holidays
 other
[16] How long do you stay visiting open spaces?

 10-30min [ working days, weekends]

 30-60min [ working days, weekends]
 1-2hrs [ working days, weekends]
 > 2hrs [ working days, weekends]
 other
[17] How do you rate your open spaces utilization?

 Very good
 Good
 Medium
 Seldom [occasional]
 Never

Part 3. Psychological, sociological and aesthetic stimulants to use open space [Former trends]
[18] How attractive were open spaces in your former place?

 Attractive
 Medium
 Less attractive
 Not attractive

[19] How relaxed were you by the open spaces in your former place?

91
  Released
 Relaxed
 Less relaxed
 Tense

[20] Safety of the open spaces in your former place?

 Safe
 Medium
 Tolerable
 Dangerous

[21] How organized were open spaces in your former place?

 Ordered
 Medium level
 Tolerable
 Disordered
[22] What type were open spaces in your former place?
 Sport fields
 Grass field
 Playgrounds
 Paved surfaces
 Private backyard
 park

Part 4. Density related [Current trends]

[23] As compared to your former open space utilization, rate your status in CMC compound.
1. Better than before
2. Similar
3. Less than before
4. I never use open
[24] If your answer for Q.23 is 3 or 4, why do you think there is a decrement?
1. It is boring to go up and down via the stair every time I want to go out.
2. I replaced the activities that can be done at home
3. The open spaces are not adequate
4. The open spaces are not user friendly
5. Other_____________________________________________________________________________________
[25] Do you think building height has influenced your open space usage?
1. Yes,
2. Sometimes
3. I don’t feel it
4. No.
[26] If you were in the ground or first floor, do you think it is more comfortable for open
space usage?
1. Yes,
2. No difference
3. No.
[27] Which floor do you prefer for living?
1. Ground
2. First
3. Second
4. Third

92
[28] Why do you prefer ground or first floor? (If their answer for Q.25 is 1 or 2)
1. It will promote attachment for the ground
2. I am highly attached to ground activities
3. Ease of access for open spaces
4.

[29] Compared to the building u reside, which building in CMC compound do you think is
open space friendly? [Color site plan attached]

1. Building 1
2. Building 2
3. Building 3
4. Building 4
5. Building 5
6. Building 6
7. Building 7
8. Building 8

[30] Why do you think building is open space friendly?

1. It has better access for open spaces
2. It has lower heights
3. It is not enclosed
4. It has larger width that exposes it for open space
5. Its location in the compound
6.
7. Other__________________________________________________________________________

[31] What changes do you observe on children trend of open space utilization?
1. They tend to use regardless of floor heights.
2. They tend to play at home rather than outside
3. They tend to play at school than in the compound
4. They do not prefer to play in the playfields provided since they are from their houses.
5. Other_______________________________________________________________________

[32] How satisfactory is the available open spaces?

1. Very satisfactory
2. Satisfactory
3. Medium
4. Tolerable
5. Unsatisfactory
[33] Which age groups are affected by building height?

1. Children
2. Older people
3. Disabled
4. Obese people
5. Other…

93
94