WHERE IS HOME FOR THE ABUJA, NIGERIA URBAN POOR?

Although Abuja officially became the capital of Nigeria in December 1992, the plan to relocate the capital of Nigeria from Lagos to Abuja was conceived in 1975. A Master Plan of the Abuja Federal Capital Territory was designed but successive governments in Abuja neglected these principles leading to inadequate housing and perverted urbanization. The current Abuja settlement patterns (formal and informal) are not concerned with integration and sustainability. The most vulnerable, the urban poor, had to arrange, on their own, where to live and that resulted in shanty settlements. The study areas are characterized by Quick-Fix homes, made with abandoned and used building materials from construction sites. This paper argues that successive Abuja governments have not considered all the housing options in housing the urban poor and in other to stay close to work, the urban poor infiltrate the formal settlement areas of the city and that resulted in dualistic and pluralistic settlements in Abuja.


Introduction
The current Abuja, Nigeria's settlement patterns (formal and informal) are not speaking in terms of integration. There is, in-existence, adverse economic inequality and injustice within the Capital City of Abuja and the need for the formal, informal settlements and the Abuja urban actors to be talking, to link the informal and formal settlements together and tie them into the Central City infrastructure. The poor implementation of the Abuja Master Plan, led to dismal miscommunication problems and economic divide within the Abuja Capital City. The city lacked integrity, inclusion of all and shared prosperity. It is a model capital city that lacked inclusive economic growth incentives and not sustainable.
In May 1967, Lagos emerged as both the Federal Capital of Nigeria as well as the capital of Lagos State with the creation of states and the continued retention of Lagos as the Federal Capital was seriously questioned. The dual role became a source of embarrassing political and administrative complications with the result of that, Lagos became not only unlivable and unserviceable, but also ungovernable (Nwafor, 1980, Okonkwo, 2006. Nwafor (1980) stated that, as a result of the peripheral location of Lagos, the city has tended to acquire a 'regional' rather than a truly national capital where provincialism is stronger than the feeling of the nation's unity. In Nigeria where there is an urgent need to create a national identity and preserve the country as a political unit, the 'created capital' should be so located as to convey 'a feeling of location and functional neutrality' (Nwafor (1980), citing Stephenson, 1970, Okonkwo, 2006.
The need to transfer the capital of Nigeria from Lagos to Abuja, came as a result of the former nation's capital, Lagos, being overcrowded, congested and had no lands for expansion. Olaitan (2004) indicated that, the concept of Abuja as a befitting Federal Capital Territory, centrally located and without the defects of Lagos was spawned in 1975. According to Olaitan (2004), the Federal Capital City is located on the Gwagwa Plains in the northeastern quadrant of the Federal Capital Territory. The site for the Federal Capital City was chosen for its location at the center of the nation, its moderate climate, small population and also for political reasons. To accomplish the goal of relocating the Federal Capital to an area, geographically central to Nigeria and with relative equal accessibility to all parts of the nation, about 845 villages were displaced to make way for the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, (Olaitan, 2004). The government wanted an area, free of all encumbrances, a principle of "equal citizenship" within the territory where no one can "claim any special privilege of "indigeneity" as was the case with Lagos (Jibril, 2006, Okonkwo, 2006. In the process of establishing a befitting new nation's capital, a Master Plan of the Abuja Federal Capital Territory was design. The resultant Master Plan was prepared such that land use, infrastructure, housing, transportation, recreation, economic and social services are coordinated and inter-related, Olaitan (2004), citing Abba (2003). Successive governments in Abuja have neglected these principles. As such, series of distortions to the concept, direction and implementation of the master plan are prevalent today (Olaitan, 2004).
According to Jibril (2006), the first major policy statement made by Nigerian government in 1976, when it decided to move the Federal Capital of Nigeria from Lagos (in the coastal area) to Abuja (in the central part of the country) was for complete relocation of the entire inhabitants outside the new Federal Capital Territory, of about 8000 square kilometers. This was aimed at freeing the territory from any primordial claims, and to enable government take direct control, plan and develop the new city without any encumbrance, but that was not the case within the governments of Abuja. In making reference to the Abuja Master plan (FCDA, 1979), Olaitan (2004) indicated that, the Abuja Master Plan reveals that in scope, besides including the major elements of the regional development plan for the Territory, the plan intended to regulate land use, transportation systems, infrastructure, housing and other services in a manner that recognized their inter-relationships and spatial requirements which are paramount in any physical planning exercise of its magnitude.
As it is the case with development implementation in most developing nations, Abuja Master Plan was distorted, following different policy changes that affected the city. According to Jibril (2006), "between 1976 and 2003, (a period of 27 years) there had been about four major policy changes affecting resettlement within the Federal Capital Territory (FCT)." They are: (1), it was the original intent of the Abuja Master Plan to relocate the inhabitants, occupying the FCT area, however, careful enumeration later revealed that the figure was not 'few'about 150,000 -300,000 people. Uprooting such a huge population was thought to be unwise and could have delayed the take-off of the project. It was then decided to allow the inhabitants to remain, but could be resettled within the territory, should their places of abode be affected by city development projects.
(2), in some cases, at the time of relocation, plans were canceled for political reasons. While the people affected were fully prepared for movement to the new location, another policy change happened (Jibril (2004). (3), in preparation for the 2003 general election, the additional security personnel brought into the FCT occupied the buildings under the resettlement scheme(plate 1). These major shifts in policy direction can be said to be the root cause of problems of squatters and Land Administration within the FCT (Jibril, 2006 (2006) (4). The derail and distortion of the Abuja Master Plan was also attributed to lack of professional personnel managing and planning the development of Abuja Master Plan. According to Jibril (2004), "the main cause of the distortions of the Master Plan was the creation of the Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory (MFCT) in 1980 and its being super imposed on the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA). The Ministry lacked the professional personnel to understand the philosophy of a Master Plan and the need for detailed planning and design to be carried out before the Master Plan could be transformed into construction activities in any part of the City." Jibril (2004) further indicated that, "in 2003, a Ministerial Committee on Illegal Structures in the FCT was constituted to collate a list of all illegal structures in the FCT and present a strategy for demolition. Interestingly, most of the members of the committee were not professional planners." (5), the unplanned territorial growth and developments occurring in the Central Area of the City could also be traced back to the governments rush to relocate the government workers from Lagos to Abuja.
The development plan and process envisaged the seat of power would move from Lagos to Abuja in 1986, but this time of movement was brought forward to 1982/83; hence the commencement of urbanization stampeded. The most vulnerable, the urban poor had to arrange, on their own, where to live in order to stay close to work place and also reduce transportation and rent incidence on their income and that resulted in shanty settlements (in both formal and informal housing areas).These settlements have grown rapidly and are generally unplanned, overcrowded and lacking basic amenities and infrastructure (plates 2 and 3).
Plate 2. Utako urban poor settlement Source: the author Abuja Plate 3.Utako urban poor settlement, Abuja Source: the author Although, many of the rushed housing developments within the city area have had to be demolished, the shanty developments persist in the periphery of Abuja especially as there is still little provision for housing accommodation for the low-income workers within the city (Olaitan, 2004). Adeponle (2013) observed "that Abuja city is growing faster (13%) than the provisions of its Master Plan." It is fast turning into an environmental embarrassment, with developments springing up in gross isolation of zoning and other planning codes. The last known population of the Federal Capital Territory is 2, 440, 200 (population.city, 2016) while the 2016 estimates by T.I. N Magazine (2016), puts the Federal Capital Territory at 3, 100, 000.Abuja, which was supposed to be an epitome ofbeauty and an enlightened vision of city development, has suffered over the years from unnecessary distortions in the implementation of its Master Plan. (Adeponle, 2013).
As a result of the changes in the Abuja Master Plan and policy inconsistences, the Abuja Central City designed to be a model city is not sustainable. It is divided between success and failures, rich and poor. It has potentials to flourish, but in most part, impoverished. The Central City is characterized by urban dialectics, dualistic living and infiltration of the formal settlement areas by informal settlers because of provision of services to the inhabitants of the formal settlement areas. There exist, a clear disparity in the socio-economic base of the two settlements yet, they co-exist. The two settlements co-existing within the formal settlement areas of the Central City are not integrated yet, because of nearness to their jobs and survival, the informal settlers infiltrating the formal settlement areas characterized as the urban poor, find their ways into the formal settlement areas of the Central City. In order to provide services and earn their living, the urban poor, through self-efforts, provide their shelters on government vacant lands, abandoned buildings and on city side-walks (plates 4).The informal settlement areas within the Central City of Abuja are not integrated into the Central City infrastructure and that is one of the major challenges of the city as a result, promoting urban poor growth that resulted in squatter settlements.
Plate4. Abuja's public space (housing/shelter) Source: the author A typical space becomes the shelter/house and the house becomes the space (for most of these people who are security guards, their relations and friends) in the case of urban poor and urban poor housing in Abuja. In most cases, these spaces are without spatially distributed objects yet, they are side by side with formal settlements without proper links and visually acceptable urban objects, elements and qualities. The nature of the socioeconomic complexity of these informal spaces, which analysis is shown in this work, constitute a strongly identifiable character which is in this work christened Spatial Housing. It is so termed because of the assumption of the public/open space into the provision of the basic (spatial) socioeconomic, psychological, shelter, etc. needs of the urban poor.
This phenomenon is different from those of the destitute/homeless people in the city. The informal inhabitants are more or less fixed in location (even though improper location) and actively dependent on the socioeconomic activities of the urban economy. To that effect, Abuja urbanization is growing more than the area's urban development vis-à-vis housing and economic resources. In the formal sense, spaces can be defined and differentiated, however same cannot be said in the informal, hence 'spatial dialectics'. Within the space is the spatial housing characterized by informal volumetric and unvolumetric combination now called the 'spatial house', 'open house' or 'house without limit.' The government's approaches to solving the problems of the urban poor housing issues in Abuja FCT have not yielded a reliable solution; especially in the area of urban spatial distribution being created by the invasion of the formal by the informal urban dwellers; and to start solving them, this study explored sustainable spatial integration and retention of the urban poor settlement areas that architecturally bridged the gap (spatial solution) between the urban poor settlements (place of abode) and place of work; thus, evolving a sustainable spatial housing design for the urban poor in Abuja.
Today, the major threat to human environment is more complex, more closely connected with the very way in which cities are built. For example, the largest cities have grown nearly tenfold in a century. Yet, there consumption of land is greater still. An immense transport system is required. In the wealthier countries this bears strongly on the fact that masses of automobiles raise the level of air pollution and noise, and create serious problems of congestions and accidents. In poor countries where poor housing structures dominate the urban landscape, spaces are littered with settlements lacking the most basic urban infrastructures (plates 5 to 9). All this tend to reduce the quality of the human environment especially in the urban areas (Okonkwo, 1998, p32

Aim of the Article
The aim of this article is to list the problems of the neglected principles of the Abuja, Nigeria Master Plan and proffer solutions that will help in ameliorating the problems of Abuja housing inadequacy.

Research Methodology
This study adopted quantitative and qualitative research methods that embraced information from primary and secondary data sources, survey of the study area and statistical computations. The disciplinary area of focus is Abuja urban poor housing provisions, or better said, housing inadequacy in Abuja urban poor communities and the urban environments as a result, the study evaluated the opinions of the experts in the field and used them in supporting the argument that, "there exist, dichotomy in Abuja, Nigeria's Architecture: a case of failed implementation of the Abuja Master Plan".

Population of Study
The study survey focused on the study area's urban poor communities. The Abuja Master Plan indicated that Abuja will be developed in phases and it has phases one to five. The urban poor communities in phases 1 to 4 have been enumerated by the Abuja government while phase 5 has not. This study investigated the urban poor communities in phases 1 to 4 and they have a total population of 114738 (table 1). In determining the sample size for this study, one community in each of the 4 phases was selected (table 2) and the sample size is 399.

Sampling Technique
The stratified single-stage cluster sampling technique was used to select subjects for the study. The phases studied form the strata, afterwards, an area is selected from each phase and sampled randomly (table 2).

VALIDITY OF THE INSTRUMENT
Questionnaire on the Demographic Characteristics of the Abuja Urban poor study area was designed in consultation with three experts; one came from Department of Statistics, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, the other one from Department of Architecture of the same university and the third one came from Department of Architecture, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus. The survey questionnaire, covered, the Abuja urban poor living standards, home ownership, place of work in relation to place of adobe, land ownership, socio-economic conditions of the Abuja area territory were conducted between June 6 th to 16 th 2017, to aid in understanding the reasons for the inadequate housing within the territory that resulted in the Dichotomy existing in Abuja.

Reliability of the Instrument
A pilot study was conducted in an area similar to the area of study. 30 questionnaires were administered to test for internal consistency of responses using a measure of reliability known as Cronbach's alpha. Ideally, in order to obtain a good estimate of the reliability of a survey, we split the items into two groups and then compare these groups as if they were two separate administrations of the same survey. This is called split-half test. This test is used instead of testretest technique to avoid bias. The result shows that the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for each of the split halves 1 & 2 are 0.860 and 0.894 respectively, and the correlation between forms is 0.880, indicating a very strong reliability. Therefore, the instrument is reliable for the study (table 4).

Method of Data Analysis
Data collated was coded, entered and analyzed using statistical package for social science (SPSS) version 22. Descriptive statistics that included frequency and percentages were used to summarize the categorical variables while means and standard deviations were obtained for continuous variables. The Likert scale used ranges from strongly disagree = 1 (lowest in the scale) to strongly agree = 5 (highest in the scale). However this scale is reversed for negative questions. The average of the scale is 3 (criterion mean). Thus means greater than the criterion mean of 3 indicates a positive response and vice-versa. Hypotheses were tested using Pearson's Chi square and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). P value less than 0.05 level of significance was regarded as significant. Results were presented in tables and charts. The inferential statistical tools are hereby discussed in details.

Findings
In the field, the researcher found formal (well surveyed settlements) and informal housing [urban poor settlements (slums)] characterized by Quick-Fix (make-shift) homes, mostly built with recycled wood, zinc and aluminum products and from construction sites (plates 2 to 9). The settlements have homes in total disrepair; the areas littered with waste and unkempt (even at the middle of formal housing areas). The majority of the settlements have narrow and overflowing dirty gutters that zigzagged around the make-shift homes (plates 3and 5). They lacked infrastructure, but could be linked up with the surrounding Central City infrastructure. Interview with the residents revealed that they lived there because of nearness to places of work, both formal and informal. The areas however, have no strong economic production base of any sort and many of the residents have been living there for many years and would prefer to continue living there.

Statement of Facts
 The Abuja Master Plan was elaborated to put in place, a sustainable urban spatial environment for all groups or classes of activities to be carried out in the Capital Territory.
 The Capital City was planned to be built by the Federal Government in its greater part. The Master Plan actually provided for low-income settlements (housing) areas, to be built by the government and to be occupied by the public servants; the private sector servants did not appear to be properly provided for.  The development plan and process envisaged the seat of power would move from Lagos to Abuja in 1986, but this time of movement was brought forward to 1982/83; hence the commencement of urbanization stampeded. The most vulnerable, the urban poor had to arrange, on their own, where to live in order to stay close to work place and also reduce rent incidence on their income and that resulted in shanty settlements (in both formal and informal housing areas).
This study noted that, the Federal Capital Territory was planned, to be developed in phases and to accommodate the expectant growth and developments. The area demarcated as the FCT is predominantly in Gwariland and falls into one of the very few "buffer" zones. It has displayed a high degree of neutrality between the major northern and southern ethnic groups. The development was planned in such a way that no settlements or people affected would become separated from their "kith and kin" or be rendered "homeless" in the sense that a whole ethnic group may regard themselves "homeless" if their entire land were taken away from them and they were asked to go to settle in lands belonging to other ethnic groups (Okonkwo, 2006).This however, is not the case. A lot of the displaced people of Abuja land found themselves in areas without their "kith and kin" and in most part, rendered "homeless" and living in urban poor settlement areas. The level of development attention in the Abuja Master's Plan layouts presupposed complete relocation of the villagers to larger villages outside the Capital City; these larger villages formed the basis of the Regional Plan recommendation for development of series of satellite towns to support the Capital City, but that, so far, is not the case. The Central City area is littered with informal settlements in the formal residential areas.
The new capital residential communities are organized around households sharing daily public services which are within walking distances. Such communities vary in size depending on sharing patterns orientation to transportation facilities, residential density, natural physical boundaries, etc. An examination of urban patterns in existing Nigerian cities supports the importance of permitting such factors to reinforce traditional ties of social, cultural, occupational and administrative groupings in evolving a sense of community which can contribute to residential satisfaction. However, the application of this concept in building the new capital implied a physical expunge of the local communities and complete loss of their identity within the city; the names of the villages are retained but the villagers and their settlements are no longer there. Within residential communities, housing dominants land use as well as the most direct point of contact between the new city and its residents. The housing program for the city was formulated to strike a balance between the improved standards of housing which the public and private sectors wished to provide and the costs the city's residents could afford; but seemingly without strategy to involve those who originally inhabited the area because they have been asked to relocate outside the capital city.
Relocation of the local communities was planned in phases and areas. Hitherto government, under the Federal Capital Ministry, is yet to achieve its relocation plans. Apart from the fact that relocation meant socioeconomic dislocation of the local communities, especially those who fell within the Capital City growth areas, the incomprehensive implementation of the programmes compounded the problems associated with local communities' adjustment in resettlement sites.
First-phase relocation involved some 11,000 people while later relocation from the remaining City site involved between 8,500 and 17,000 people. However, the associated selective relocation program which meant the relocation of only those villages displaced by specific development has been compounded by constant influx of migrants and steady expansion of the settlements.
Nevertheless, while the origin of the problematic situation of the local communities whose settlements fell within the Capital City site could be in the non-implementation of the planned relocation programmes, the problem of those local communities outside the Capital City but within the FCT responds to their seemingly non-inclusion in the spatial economic order which has evolved as a result of the building of the new Capital within their Gwariland (Okonkwo, 2006). The initial government policy of housing development through the FCDA made people to expect too much from Government. Even though it wanted to set the pace and encourage people to move into an area that was hitherto least developed in the country and lacking in the most basics of all social amenities. After sufficient confidence was built, government did not see the need to continue with that type of development again and so pulled out in 1991 from large scale housing provisions. It did this at a time when the private sector was yet to produce enough housing stock at affordable rate for the ever growing population of the territory. The consequences are of course acute shortages of housing stock within the city and its immediate environs. The only solution was recourse to squatting solution by people mostly not engaged in the formal sector and therefore not entitled to any form of Government housing provisions. To further compound the problems, the few private developers did not build for low income earnerspeople mostly engaged in the informal sector. Lack of a well-developed Mortgage Institutions did not give much room for private developers to provide enough housing scheme for low income earners hence squatter development in Abuja (Jibril, 2006).Based on these conditions, the present author, states that the Abuja government has not considered all the housing options, in housing the ever increasing Abuja's population as a result, the Abuja urban poor are found in both formal and informal housing settlements of the city. They live in make shift homes and details of their living conditions and family characteristics are detailed in the data tables below (table 5). 8% would prefer to live far away from their work places. The researcher inquired, the preference of the respondents as to, the type of building or community they would prefer to live in. 77.5% of them indicated that they prefer to live in a high-rise type of building in the city. 15.2% indicated apartment with open lands, 6.3% preferred single detached building in the suburb while 1.0% preferred more organized village. They are also, interested in living in a government subsidized housing estate with industries where they can work, 97.1%. However, the urban poor do not believe that the government is doing a good job handling their housing problems, 89.5%. Only 10.5% of the respondents indicated that the government is doing a good job in handling their housing problems (table 6).

Figure 1. Living within walking distance from work places
The researchers reviewed the characteristics of the 4 phases and when asked if they liked living within walking distance from their living places, 79.2% responded yes. In phase 2, 100% said yes, in phase 3, 98.1% while in phase 4, 99.5% (figure 1). Statistically, all the respondents from the 4 phases shared the view that living close to their work places mattered a lot to them. While on the field, the researcher wanted to know the reason behind their unanimous agreement to living close to their work places. The answers received were equally similar. They indicated low family income, expensive transportation cost, easy to prepare food and eat if they were around the house and most importantly, it will enable them manage their businesses better. The researcher also noted that, an average worker in Abuja urban poor settlement takes an average of two bus trips ranging from 20 to 40 minutes a trip to get to work. In some cases, three trips, depending on the area where the job is located. After considering the stress of taking two to three trips to work and without much to show for it, most of them decided to stay back and start their own business which in most cases, resulted in buying and selling. Table 6 indicated that 42.1% of the respondents are into sales and 15.2% are self-employed (table 6). The researcher looked into the respondents from phases 2 to 4 with a slight increase in, indicating their interest in living close to their work places. Generally, it was the same economic reasons and cost of transportation. A few of them indicated interest in staying close to their farms which credited the survey result that indicated 15.4% respondents who are farmers ( Living within a walking distance from work place Figure 2. Types or community preferred by the urban poor Figure 2 reviewed the response of the respondents from the 4 phases, when asked their preference of the type of community they would like to live in. Phase 1 had 77.8%, phase 2 had 82.9%, phase 3 recorded 66.7% and phase 4 had 78.4%. Phases 1, 2 and 4 were statistically equal which attracted the researcher's attention. Upon further investigation, the respondents in the Kabusa village although indicated their like for High-rise buildings, would prefer one with open spaces that would enable them develop and manage their own businesses because of availability of land. Some equally indicated that it would afford them the opportunity to live close to their homes as indicated in figure 2. Figure 2 equally revealed that among the 4 phases investigated for their preference for living in single detached buildings in the suburbs, 13.0% of them came from phase 3. Upon further investigation, Chief Isiokoma of Kabusa, one of the stakeholders of the community indicated that they have more organized buildings in Kabusa and would prefer living their if the opportunity presents itself and would like to keep their housing types with high rise buildings at the periphery. The houses are however, typical of all the Abuja urban poor building types as document on plates 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. When challenged that the buildings and the village are in disrepair, why keeping what is not working, the Chief indicated that they have lived there all their lives and would prefer staying there with improvements in form of contemporary buildings and structured infrastructure. At Garki that was sampled for phase 1, 5.6% of them would equally prefer living in single detached buildings in the suburb. Jabi Samule was sampled for phase 2 and 4.3% of the respondents shared the same view while at Lugbe that represented phase 4, 5.4% of the respondents preferred single detached buildings in the suburb. Upon the researcher's further investigations, it was clear that most of the people were into farming and would prefer staying close to their farms as indicated in  97.1% of the respondents to the survey questionnaire (table 6) indicated that they would prefer living in government subsidized estate with industries where they can work. The researcher looked at the components of the respondents and their areas. Figure 3 revealed that statistically, all the phases are interested in government subsidized estates although, the respondents from phase 4 are more eager to live in a government subsidized estate. The researcher's investigation indicated that the attraction came from high cost of commuting to and from work, the opportunity to own and manage their own businesses and living in a subsidized house in a more organized scheme where they can live and work (table 6).

Figure 5.3. Government handling of urban poor housing problems
When asked in table 6 if the government is doing a good job handling the urban poor housing problems, 89.5% of the respondents indicated that the government is not doing a good job. 10.5% of them said that the government is doing well in handling their housing needs. The researcher's review of the components of the respondents indicated that statistically, the Government's handling of urban poor housing problems Poor Good respondents from the 4 phases surveyed are even in agreeing that the government is not handling their housing needs well. 19.4% of the 10.5% who indicated that the government is doing a good job handling their housing needs came from phase 1 (Garki), 10.4% from phase 4 (Lugbe), 8.6% from phase 2 (Jabi Samuel) while 7.4% are from phase 3 (Kabusa). During the course of this research and interacting with the residents of the urban poor communities and the government workers in the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA), there exist common believes that the residents of the urban poor communities are resistant to changes and satisfied with their current conditions. According to the information gathered in the study area and tableted in tables 5 and 6, the assumptions were not true and not empirically substantiated only based on communal bias. The urban poor are amenable and would embrace changes especially, those that would positively impact their lives

Recommendations
This study recommends for the Abuja government to review and change her typical ways of implementing government policies. The governments in Nigeria have in the past, developed housing programmes for the urban poor without urban design attributes, contributions of the inhabitants and consideration of their interests and those are, part of the problems with the Nigerian housing delivery programmes and needed to be changed.
A sustainable spatial integration and retention of the urban poor areas in their current locations are recommended. The retention and sustainable spatial integration of the urban poor settlement areas, with urban planning elements and architecture would bridge the gap (spatial solution) between the urban poor settlements (place of abode) and place of work. The developments in the retained settlements must meet engineering and economic feasibilities, physical and biological capabilities, institutional acceptance and endorsement, and political, social, and financial acceptability. They must stand the test of time and have the ability to command resources and compete beyond borders and attract outside influence.
A strict adherence to the goals and objectives of the Master Plan, development laws, the use of professionally trained staff in the execution and implementation of the Master Plan and integration of the informal settlements into the formal settlement areas of the Central City. To promote growth and integration, allocation of Certificate of Occupancy (C of O) to the residents at the present locations of the settlements is strongly recommended.
Granting and giving lands to the residents of the urban poor settlements of Abuja, to enable them build and economically develop their settlements with the use of high rise (4 to 6 story apartments) and row housing would bridge the existing gap between the formal and informal settlements of the Central City. The survey result, table 6 indicated that, 77.5% of the respondents would like to live in high-rise buildings in the city and 15.2% would prefer to live in apartment with open lands. The government's approaches to solving the problems of the urban poor housing in Abuja FCT have not worked and to start solving them, this study recommends granting subsidized lands, monetization and subsidized housing rent to own programmes. The government could build the buildings and rent them to the urban poor on a subsidized rent to own basis.
It recommends for the government to invest in the urban poor settlements in Nigeria to invigorate hope, encourage and restore confidence in them. The settlements have for years, suffered and in poor conditions and lacked housing and socioeconomic needs. The present state of the rich community's comfort and competition are, as a result of the free access they have to lands and resources. Denied access to lands and resources are persistent problems to the urban poor and have continually derailed their growth and development.
It recommends adopting urban design principles, dealing with the density of the urban poor settlements, the aesthetics, urban amenities, well defined means of circulation, functional parks, how the urban poor settlement areas function and decongestion of the areas by building high rise (4 to 6 story apartments with facilities for factories and industries within the buildings) and row housing, with provisions for urban community farming to enable the settlers maintain their lifestyle. The buildings would embrace facilities for factories and industries (commerce) on the lower floors, where the residents would be gainfully engaged in economic activities while they live on the upper floors (recommended models 1 and 2).
Recommended Model 1. The neighborhoods of Abuja urban poor settlements are all different and will not adopt a particular layout pattern, but will embrace integrating housing and commercial activities that would promote growth and integration with the Abuja City Center utilizing high-rise building approach.
Model 2d. Model projected view Source: Author's proposal Industries and markets allocate resources more efficiently than government and reduce the dependency on government for survival and daily living as a result, this study recommends that, efforts must be made to incorporate commerce and industries in the retained urban poor settlements where the residents can live and work. It recommends for the government to review the nation's industrial policies to encourage private sector investments in urban poor settlements that would foster growth, technological excellence and entrepreneurship. These will lead the urban poor settlements to unprecedented housing developments and ownership and especially in Abuja, the study area.

Conclusion
The current situation favors the rich and only through balanced economy can a better society be made of the Abuja Capital City. Share values make for a stronger society. The Abuja urban poor are calling for freedom and dignity by economic integration of the formal and informal settlements. It is understandable that, when your neighbor is successful you want to be successful too. The Abuja Capital City needs to be interconnected with the unstructured segments of the city. The formal and informal settlements of the Abuja Capital City should be talking to each other instead of talking at each other (the Dichotomy in Abuja). Abuja's diversity needs to be turned into treasure for the inhabitants, both in the formal and informal settlements.
As communities try joining the world class, it is important that they direct their attention to the problems of urbanization, homelessness, population and their consequences especially, as they affect human settlements, growth, development and the resources to sustain them. Nigeria Federal Housing Authority indicated the urgent need to provide 12 to 16 million homes in the country (FHA, 2009). The population of the country is fast growing and so is the rural to urban migration putting pressure on both the housing industry and the existing infrastructure. To connect to the rest of the world, the government must start solving the population problems; provide the facilities needed to sustain the population growth, commerce, industry, tourism, social services and housing.
All over the world, including Nigeria, all the major cities are over populated, faced with inadequate housing, buildings in disrepair, traffic jams, bad roads, pressure on infrastructure, etc. With all these problems in mind, connecting to the world class would be farfetched until governments start working on sustainable spatial retention programmes, providing facilities that would create the much needed comfort zones for the people to settle down and start thinking clearly and fending for themselves. To achieve that, the government must start providing these facilities, using Abuja as a model city, the Abuja government must de-urbanize the city, provide the residents with reasonable paying jobs, provide housing, transportation, constant electricity, water supply, etc. These could be accomplished through good initiatives, government interventions, cooperative assistance and partnering with the people (privatization). Sustainable Spatial Housing Design for the Urban Poor in Abuja, where one would live and work within a short distance, partake in the ownership of the community, government offices and industries located within the settlements, tourism facilities, trade show facilities, conference centers and other international attractions, located within the areas should be encouraged (models 1 and 2).