Mechanisms of Application Organized Self-Help Housing Program in New Egyptian Cities for Achieving Low-Cost Housing (Case Study: Ebny Betak Project - Six October City)

Introduction

Low-cost housing has become a critical priority for many nations, particularly developing countries like Egypt, where rapid urbanization and population growth consistently outpace the supply of affordable homes. The struggle is most acute for low-income groups, who are often priced out of formal housing markets. In response, governments have explored various policies and programs. Among these, the organized self-help housing program has emerged as a promising approach. Unlike informal self-building, which often leads to slums, an organized program involves structured collaboration between the state, beneficiaries, and other institutions.

This paper, published in the International Journal of Development and Sustainability, critically examines how such mechanisms can be applied in Egypt’s new cities. It uses the Ebny Betak project in Six October City as a primary case study. While the project succeeded in constructing many new homes, it faced significant hurdles, including high costs and the unintended exclusion of the poorest citizens. This summary explores the paper’s analysis of successful international models, the specific mechanisms applied in Egypt, and the key lessons for future low-cost housing initiatives.

Defining Organized Self-Help Housing

The concept of self-help housing varies globally. In its traditional form, it refers to individuals building unplanned homes without government oversight, which typically results in informal areas lacking basic services. A more structured variant is self-build housing, where residents participate with the government, often using engineers or contractors, to complete homes according to set criteria. However, the paper focuses specifically on organized self-help housing.

This model involves residents not just in building, but also in planning, design, and management stages, all within a legal and regulatory framework supported by the state. The goal is to create formal, serviced residential areas that meet the actual needs of low-income families while keeping costs manageable. The paper outlines six main types of organized self-help projects, ranging from those using contractors (Type 1) to full community cooperation (Type 5) and those without any contractors (Type 6). Each type defines distinct roles for the government, the people, and other parties in stages like land selection, planning, funding, and maintenance.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Self-Help Housing

The paper highlights several advantages of self-help housing program for low-cost development. First, it helps cover a portion of the housing demand for low-income groups. Second, it produces units that are more convenient for residents’ specific needs. Third, it reduces design, construction, and implementation costs for the state. Fourth, it minimizes waste of financial resources, as the number of units built matches actual demand. However, there are notable disadvantages.

The relatively high price of building materials often exceeds the financial capacity of low-income families. Many residents lack sufficient construction experience, leading to poorly built houses. There is also a tendency for the government’s role to diminish, especially in long-term management and maintenance. Furthermore, loan interest rates are frequently not commensurate with low incomes, creating a debt burden rather than a solution.

International Mechanisms for Success

To formulate successful mechanisms, the paper reviews experiences from countries like England, the United States, South Africa, and Southeast Asia. These international experiences show that effective organized self-help programs rely on several critical mechanisms across three main stages: planning, implementation, and support.

In the planning stage, success depends on providing suitable land at affordable housing program prices without speculation. This can involve the private sector, where developers allocate a percentage of land for self-help projects in exchange for rights to other investment lands. The land must come with basic infrastructure, roads, and public transport. Diversifying plot sizes allows for individual or group building. Importantly, the government must identify the needs of low-income groups through interviews and questionnaires before designing anything. Planning requirements should be simple and easy to follow, including low building percentages and heights that match residents’ financial potential. Introducing alternative cheap construction methods and training engineers to guide residents are also vital.

In the implementation stage, financing is the main pillar. Mechanisms include providing financing institutions with suitable loan systems for low-income groups. Coordination between government agencies and banks is essential to fund building concurrently with land distribution. The state can offer additional small-interest loans, repaid in installments after construction. Another method is activating the role of developers or investors who buy land, bear building costs, and sell units to residents with appropriate installment plans. Giving residents enough time to prepare money and linking payment systems to construction completion percentages are also recommended. Non-financial incentives such as exemption from utility extension costs, cheap building materials, tax exemptions, and reduced land prices for cooperative groups are equally important.

Regarding support and assistance, the paper emphasizes that residents need training. Short courses can teach basic construction skills and how to meet planning requirements without errors. Establishing advisory centers for engineering, finance, and technical guidance is crucial. Even a simple website clarifying project information, available plots, and the institutions to contact for permits can streamline the process.

The Egyptian Experience: From Core Housing to Ebny Betak

Egypt’s journey with low-cost housing program began in the 1940s, initially focusing on industrial workers’ housing and popular (alshaby) housing. Between 1965 and 1982, the state developed informal areas using site-and-services and core housing concepts, often with financial support from the World Bank and USAID. By the 1980s and 1990s, new cities like Tenth of Ramadan and Sadat applied core housing—incomplete units (55-80 m²) with only a kitchen and bathroom, leaving residents to finish the rest according to their needs and available loans. While this succeeded to some extent, it faced challenges: differing designs, lack of resident experience, and low government support.

This led to the Mubarak National Housing Project in 2005, which aimed to provide 500,000 units in new cities over six years. One of its seven project types was Ebny Betak (which translates to “Build Your Own Home”). This project represented an organized self-help housing model where the government provides land with basic facilities, and residents (aged 20-40) are responsible for building, financing, and management. The government distributed about 90,000 land plots across 13 new cities, including Six October, Tenth of Ramadan, Sadat, and others.

Case Study: Ebny Betak in Six October City

Six October City was the first and largest site for Ebny Betak, containing approximately 43% of all units. The project covers 4,517 acres in the southern part of the city, with about 40,900 land plots, each 150 m². Residents are permitted to build up to three housing units (ground, first, second floors) on 50% of the plot area. The paper analyzes the mechanisms applied in three stages.

Pre-design and planning mechanisms included selecting low-price land sold at 70 Egyptian pounds per meter and setting specific beneficiary criteria: age between 20-40, no prior ownership of a housing unit, maximum monthly income of 1000 LE per person or 1500 LE per family, and no previous cooperative loans.

Planning and design mechanisms involved contracting Egyptian universities and the Housing & Building National Research Center to prepare physical plans and architectural drawings. Three housing program design models were available, though only two were used in Six October. The government set general rules like one piece of land per family and no plot annexation.

Funding and implementation mechanisms included a government support of 15,000 pounds for each of the first and second floors if the resident eventually sold the house to another low-income citizen. National banks provided a loan of 30,000 pounds (which grew to over 50,000 pounds with interest over 20 years). The government supplied basic infrastructure and used contractors to build services and commercial areas. Incentives included extended deadlines for construction phases and the right to sell or lease after five years.

Main Challenges and Obstacles

Despite these mechanisms, the Ebny Betak project in Six October City faced serious challenges, identified through questionnaires with beneficiaries and Ministry of Housing reports.

In the pre-design and planning stage, the housing program project location was far from work areas and services, with no public transport network. There was a deep lack of compatibility between the beneficiary selection criteria and the high financial requirements for building. Critically, the government did not determine low-income group needs before planning.

In the planning and design stage, residents’ views were completely ignored. They did not choose their land plots or housing models; selection was random. Designs lacked flexibility to meet future needs. The 50% building ratio on a 150 m² plot was seen as very low, providing inadequate living space. Housing models were almost constant across locations, failing to reflect diverse needs.

The funding and implementation stage saw the most severe problems. The project failed to enable residents to build their own homes because most lacked construction experience. Instead, residents became supervisors and managers, while contractors did the actual building. The government did not provide construction facilities like water or building materials at suitable prices, so costs rose inappropriately. The loan interest from National Bank was not commensurate with low incomes. Building a ground floor cost up to 45,000 pounds, far exceeding government support.

There were no specific contractors for the project; each resident chose their own, leading to inconsistent quality. EGYCO Company failed to complete infrastructure and services in some areas, even after construction finished, forcing infrastructure networks to be built above ground. There was a lack of coordination between residents and construction companies regarding the timing of infrastructure. Absence of security led to theft of building materials. Some incentives actually supported middle-income groups rather than the poor. Financing systems did not match the financial possibilities or available time of low-income families. Ultimately, some beneficiaries did not even live in their completed houses due to the lack of services and facilities.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The paper concludes that while Egypt’s Ebny Betak project implemented some successful mechanisms such as providing affordable housing program land and basic infrastructure, it failed in many others. The main failure was the mismatch between the project’s mechanisms and the real capabilities of low-income groups.

For the pre-planning and design stage, the paper recommends selecting sites near work areas, services and public transport. Beneficiary criteria must align with actual financial requirements, and needs assessments must be done before any planning.

For the planning and design stage, recommendations include simple housing program project requirements, determining suitable land and unit areas to cover population needs, involving residents in planning and design, and completing plans in the shortest possible time.

For the implementation stage, the paper suggests providing direct financial support from the government, partnering with financial institutions for low-interest loans, involving the private sector in services and infrastructure, training residents on construction, providing technical support, using specific contractors for efficiency, and offering building materials at low prices.

More specifically for developing Ebny Betak, the paper proposes: increasing the building ratio above 50%; providing diverse housing program unit models; increasing time limits for construction; ensuring infrastructure and services are in place before residents build; having the government provide contractors to build unified homes; offering special loans with the lowest possible interest rates for low-income groups; providing construction materials at the lowest possible prices; improving security to prevent theft; applying non-ownership systems like rent for those who cannot afford construction costs; and most importantly, activating the state’s oversight role to ensure all mechanisms work together to achieve the true goal: affordable, adequate housing for Egypt’s low-income population, not just physical units that end up benefiting the middle class.

Also Read: “The New Poverty Line in Urban Sri Lanka: What It Means for Affordable Housing Design”