Kenya is consistently ahead of the curve—or at the very least firmly in step with modern urban and economic thinking. Zimbabwe, by contrast, risks missing a historic opportunity to reposition its capital for growth, productivity, and global relevance. While the government has announced plans to regenerate Harare through the development of Mt Hampden, there is growing concern that this vision is already being diluted by yet another wave of uncontrolled real estate compounds. The country appears increasingly fixated on property development, often at the expense of deliberate commercial, institutional, and industrial planning.
The warning signs are already visible. The state has constructed villas in Mt Hampden, and a significant portion of the land has reportedly been sold to a Middle Eastern investor for a so-called “Cyber City” real estate project. This approach reflects a misunderstanding of how successful cities are built. Since New York reinvented itself through the structured regeneration of Manhattan as a commercial and financial district, cities across the world have followed the same model—prioritising dense, high-value commercial development in their central business districts. In Africa, purpose-built administrative and commercial capitals, such as the New Administrative City, illustrate how state-led planning can anchor long-term urban transformation.
Once prime land is opened primarily to speculative real estate development, regulation becomes extremely difficult. Every opportunist seeks a foothold, land prices spiral, and national planning objectives are quickly undermined. Residential estates begin to dictate urban form, rather than economic function. Zimbabwe cannot afford this mistake at Mt Hampden while Harare’s original central business district continues to decay.
What is urgently required is decisive state leadership. Government should anchor the relocation by constructing modern, high-density government office complexes equipped with integrated Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems that fully digitise public services. Such infrastructure would not only improve efficiency and transparency but also create an ecosystem that attracts banks, professional services, technology firms, and regional headquarters. Modern offices with improved conditions of service would help draw skilled and competent civil servants back into the heart of government, reinforcing institutional capacity.
Meanwhile, Harare’s existing CBD is haemorrhaging business. Years of mismanagement by a dysfunctional local authority have left the city centre congested, informalised, and unattractive for serious investment. With no credible commercial alternative, companies are retreating into low-density residential suburbs, converting homes into corporate offices. This is not expansion; it is economic flight in search of sanctuary. A capital city cannot function when its commercial core collapses and disperses into unplanned residential enclaves.
The next national budget must therefore make an unambiguous statement of intent. Millions should be allocated to fully service Mt Hampden with bulk infrastructure and to develop commercial—not residential—stands that are transparently sold on the open market. Zimbabwe does not need another real estate invasion. It needs a disciplined, state-led commercial and administrative capital that restores order, efficiency, and investor confidence while relieving pressure on the existing CBD.
The irony is that construction is currently one of the main drivers of Zimbabwe’s economic recovery. Yet much of this activity is concentrated in expensive residential and speculative property, rather than commercial, industrial, or productive infrastructure. Compare this with Nairobi, where one of Africa’s largest informal settlements, Mukuru, is being transformed through high-rise residential developments. Using modern construction technologies, including 3D building methods, these projects achieve density, affordability, and efficient land use—while freeing space for commercial and industrial activity.
Zimbabwe, by contrast, remains constrained by limited exposure to contemporary urban planning ideas and environmental policy integration. The country continues to permit excessive horizontal housing expansion, consuming land that should be preserved for agriculture, ecological protection, and future industrial use. This low-density sprawl is neither economically efficient nor environmentally sustainable.
Elsewhere on the continent, countries such as Kenya and Angola—and increasingly many others—have embraced the model long adopted in developed economies: vertical urban growth that preserves scarce land resources. Kenya’s approach deserves recognition, as it reflects political will aligned with modern planning principles. Even cities in challenging contexts, such as Kinshasa in the war-ravaged Democratic Republic of the Congo, are visibly regenerating their central business districts with modern, environmentally efficient glass-and-steel structures designed to integrate into global urban networks. Notably, these regenerated districts are formal, ordered, and largely free of street vending.
Ethiopia’s Addis Ababa and Rwanda’s Kigali further demonstrate that when the state exercises firm leadership, development accelerates, cities remain orderly, and environmental considerations are deliberately embedded into infrastructure and commercial construction. These cities understand that urban order is not cosmetic—it is economic.
Finally, it is critical to distinguish between industrial property development and genuine industrialisation. The two are not the same. Zimbabwe is currently experiencing an unprecedented surge in speculative, hedging-driven property development, but this does not translate into productive capacity. Real industrialisation must begin at the grassroots by integrating the informal sector into the formal economy, organising enterprises, and relocating them into properly planned industrial parks where scale, productivity, and value addition can occur.
Harare’s regeneration—both in its historic CBD and at Mt Hampden—is not simply an urban planning issue. It is a strategic economic choice. Zimbabwe can either continue drifting into uncoordinated real estate sprawl, or it can deliberately build a modern, commercial, and industrial capital fit for the 21st century. The window for making that choice is rapidly closing.
