Not long ago, my nail therapist, who has worked diligently in the Westlands area of Accra for nearly a decade, shared a quiet but telling frustration with me.
It was not about business. It was about housing. She explained how difficult it has become to find accommodation around Westlands and the broader Legon, East Legon and Madina corridor.
Landlords, responding to demand from students of institutions such as the University of Ghana, University of Professional Studies Accra, University of Media, Arts and Communication, Trinity Theological Seminary and demand linked to Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration, are converting properties into student style accommodation and charging premium rents.
Students can pay. Workers like her cannot.
So she moves further away. Rent drops slightly. Transport costs rise sharply. Time is lost. Fatigue increases. And without any increase in income, her real earnings shrink.
This is not just her story. It is the lived reality of a growing number of Ghanaian workers.
Much of Ghana’s housing debate has focused on the missing middle. But the truth is more severe. The lower end of the housing market is not just missing. It is collapsing.
Service workers such as nail technicians, cleaners, security guards, hairdressers, food vendors, shop attendants and delivery riders are increasingly unable to find decent accommodation within the communities they serve.
At the same time, a significant portion of new housing developments in Accra are positioned as luxury offerings. Gated communities, high-end apartments and premium short stay units are expanding rapidly.
This is not accidental. It is driven by land costs, financing constraints and the need for developers to target segments that can pay quickly and upfront.
But the result is a city that is being built for those who can pay the most, not for those who keep it running. This is no surprise as landlords and developers are merely responding rationally to economic incentives. High land prices, expensive capital, weak mortgage systems and demand from students and upper income earners all push the market toward higher yielding developments.
The real gap lies in policy. As a nation, we have not created a framework that requires or incentivises mixed income housing. We have not protected rental options for lower income workers. And we have not aligned urban planning with the realities of labour markets.
This is particularly striking when one considers that Ghana already has a comprehensive framework in the form of the National Housing Policy. The policy correctly identifies the housing deficit, recognises affordability challenges, and explicitly shifts the role of government from direct provider to facilitator, with the private sector expected to lead delivery.
On paper, this is sound. In practice, it is where the problem begins.
By relying heavily on the private sector to drive housing supply, the policy assumes that the market will deliver affordability. But markets do not build for need. They build for return. In a context of high land costs, expensive financing and weak housing finance systems, developers rationally gravitate toward high margin segments.
The outcome is exactly what we are seeing. An oversupply of luxury and student focused housing, and an undersupply of affordable housing for workers.
So the market optimises. And in doing so, it excludes the most vulnerable.
Ghana does not lack institutions in the housing space. We have the State Housing Company, historically mandated to develop housing stock. We have the National Homeownership Fund, aimed at improving access to housing. We have the Ministry of Works and Housing, responsible for policy direction.
The National Housing Policy also envisages coordination among these institutions and even proposes stronger institutional frameworks to drive delivery.
Yet the lived experience of many workers show that these institutions and their interventions are not reaching those at the lowest end of the market. Indeed, even the upper and middle ends have complaints of their own.
This exposes a deeper structural issue. The policy is strong on diagnosis and broad direction, but weak on enforceable mechanisms that compel the market to deliver inclusion.
Part of the problem is focus. Much of the policy attention has been on home ownership, which is important and aligns with the National Housing Policy’s emphasis on expanding access to housing finance and mortgages. But for many Ghanaians, especially those in informal or semi formal employment, the immediate need is not ownership. It is access to affordable rental housing close to work.
Another issue is targeting. Affordable housing programmes often serve lower middle and middle income earners, while those at the very bottom remain excluded. This reflects a broader limitation within the policy framework, which does not sufficiently address the realities of Ghana’s large informal workforce, many of whom cannot meet the requirements of formal housing finance systems.
This housing challenge is not only a social issue. It is an economic and security issue.
When workers are pushed further away, transport costs rise and productivity declines. But there is more. Fatigue from long commutes reduces alertness. A security guard who travels long distances daily is less effective. A cleaner or facility worker arriving exhausted reduces operational reliability.
High turnover among service workers weakens trust systems. Constant movement of staff means repeated onboarding with limited vetting, increasing exposure to theft and internal security risks.
Workers commuting early in the morning or late at night face greater exposure to crime and unsafe transport conditions.
Informal and overcrowded housing at the lower end often lacks proper lighting, access control and community structure, creating environments that are more vulnerable to crime.
A city that pushes its workforce to the margins is not only inefficient. It is less safe. Housing policy is therefore also security policy.
The National Housing Policy recognises the importance of integrated planning, infrastructure and slum upgrading. However, without deliberate intervention to anchor low income workers within urban spaces, these objectives cannot be fully realised. Upgrading settlements without addressing affordability and proximity to jobs risks simply relocating the problem rather than solving it.
What Ghana Must Do Now:
We must move from passive observation to deliberate action.
First, Ghana must adopt mixed income housing requirements in high demand areas such as university corridors and major employment zones. This moves beyond the current policy posture and introduces enforceable inclusion. Developers should allocate a percentage of units to affordable workforce housing.
Second, we need a national rental housing strategy. Not every Ghanaian needs a mortgage. Many need stable, decent rental accommodation. This fills a critical gap in the current policy framework, which is heavily tilted toward ownership.
Third, we must protect the lower end of the market through targeted measures such as rent support schemes, reform of rent advance practices and workforce housing programmes linked to employment clusters.
Fourth, government must rebalance incentives. Through tax policy, land access and financing structures, it should become commercially viable to build for lower income groups, not only for luxury segments. This aligns with the enabling role envisioned under the National Housing Policy but requires more intentional design.
Fifth, public land must be used strategically for mixed income housing, not only for high end developments.
Sixth, transport reform must be treated as housing policy. Efficient and affordable transport expands housing access and reduces pressure on prime urban zones, reinforcing the policy’s emphasis on integrated infrastructure.
Seventh, we should support worker cooperatives and pooled rental schemes to help service workers secure accommodation collectively.
How do we finance these proposals. The question of financing is real but solvable.
Government should focus on providing serviced land and infrastructure such as roads, drainage and utilities, reducing the cost base for developers.
Pension funds and long term domestic capital can be channelled into rental housing investments with stable returns, consistent with the policy’s call for deeper housing finance systems.
Mixed income developments can use cross subsidy models where higher end units support affordable ones.
Ghana can also explore housing funds, diaspora bonds and land value capture mechanisms to reinvest gains from urban growth.
Institutions that rely on concentrated labour, including universities and large commercial operators, should participate in workforce housing solutions.
We must redefine what it means for a city to be developed. It is not enough to have luxury apartments and rising property values. A city is truly developed when the lawyer, the lecturer and the banker can live in it. But also when the cleaner, the nail technician and the security guard can live in it with dignity. This is because a city cannot function if those who sustain it are pushed out of it.
Back to the nail therapist. Her story may seem small. But it is not. It captures a structural imbalance that is quietly reshaping urban life in Ghana. She represents the working Ghanaian who is productive, disciplined and essential, yet squeezed by a system that benefits from her labour but does not make room for her life.
Ghana already has a housing policy. What it lacks is a housing system that works.
Until policy moves from broad intentions to enforceable outcomes that shape market behaviour, the crisis will deepen.
Ghana must move from treating housing as a commodity for the highest bidder to recognising it as a foundation of economic productivity, social stability and public safety because when the lower end collapses, the middle cannot stand. And when both are under pressure, the entire system is at risk.
About the Author
