In recent weeks, the international community has been outraged by former U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks suggesting that Palestinians be forcibly removed from Gaza so that a luxury resort can be built in its place. The proposal, widely condemned as ethnic cleansing, envisions the erasure of an entire population to make room for the rich.
Yet, while the world points fingers at Trump’s audacity, a similar story is unfolding right here in Addis Ababa under the leadership of Mayor Adanech Abebe. The so-called “corridor project,” particularly in areas like Kasanchiz, has become a brutal urban displacement program that echoes the logic behind Trump’s Gaza proposal. If Gaza and Kasanchiz are both being erased for the benefit of the wealthy, we might as well call it what it is—Gazanchis—the wholesale removal of a people in the name of so-called progress.
Kasanchiz: A Neighborhood Erased
For generations, Kasanchiz has been home to thousands of Addis Ababa’s working-class residents. It has been a lively neighborhood, filled with small businesses, family-owned shops, and a sense of community that no luxury high-rise could ever replace. But under Adanech Abebe’s administration, Kasanchiz has been bulldozed beyond recognition. Families who have lived there for decades are being forcibly removed without any meaningful compensation or relocation options. Unlike true urban renewal projects, which integrate former residents into redevelopment plans, this corridor project is an outright eviction.
Where are the displaced people supposed to go? Nowhere, as far as the government is concerned. Their homes are demolished, their livelihoods erased, and their voices silenced. The very land they were born and raised on is being auctioned off to wealthy developers who plan to erect luxury apartments—apartments that will never be affordable to those who were originally living there.
“Development” for the Rich, Displacement for the Poor
The justification for this corridor project is “modernization” and “beautification”—buzzwords that mean nothing for the displaced. The government promises infrastructure upgrades, better roads, and a world-class city, but at whose expense? If development only benefits the wealthy while pushing the working-class majority into the margins, can it truly be called development? Or is it just gentrification by force?
Just as Trump’s Gaza proposal seeks to turn a war-torn land into a paradise for the rich while ignoring the suffering of its people, the Addis Ababa administration is transforming Kasanchiz into Gazanchis—land cleansed of its original inhabitants so that the elite can live in luxury, untouched by the struggles of the working class.
Urban Cleansing is Still Cleansing
What is happening in Addis Ababa is not new. We have seen this before in areas like Arat Kilo and Piassa, where historic neighborhoods were torn down in favor of commercial centers and glass towers. The same fate is now befalling Kasanchiz. The city’s leadership is not redeveloping these areas to improve the lives of residents—it is cleansing them to make way for an elite few.
Displacement is not development. It is violence. And just as Trump’s Gaza proposal has been called out for what it is, it is time to call out what’s happening in Addis Ababa. The corridor project is not modernization—it is Gazanchis, a policy of forced removal and economic apartheid disguised as urban planning.
The Future of Addis Ababa Cannot Be Built on Displacement
If Addis Ababa’s leadership truly cared about development, it would prioritize inclusive urban planning. It would create housing projects that integrate original residents rather than evict them. It would ensure that the working class—who built this city—are not erased in favor of luxury high-rises that serve only the wealthy few.
Trump’s Gaza proposal and Adanech’s Kasanchiz project are two sides of the same coin—policies that favor the rich while erasing the poor. If we do not resist, Addis Ababa will become a city of glass towers without a soul, a metropolis where only the privileged can afford to live. The people of Kasanchiz—and all of Addis Ababa—deserve better.
Development should not mean destruction. And cities should not be built on the graves of their own people.
This article shows how much the writer is unfit to give insight on the topic. One sided, backwards, negative and not looking the big picture are the pronouns that describe the writing. Addis ababa has less than 200 year history . Although conservation is necessary, it should only be implemented where it is needed. Casanchis is center of addis, sooner or later it was gonna catch up with slums around there.
ከጎራው ዘልቄ እስኪ ልነጋገር
ካለሰው ቢወዱት ምን ያደርጋል አገር ?
የኔ ውብ ከተማ ህንፃ መች ሆነና የድንጋይ ክምር
የኔ ውብ ከተማ የሰው ልጅ ልብ ነው
የሌለው ዳርቻ የሌለው ድንበር
(ala Bealu Girma ዘ ቀበና)
Kazanchis was not where residents live, but where they ingraved in a disguised and dehumanized way of life. All the residents of Kazanchis relocated to well developed and furnished new neighborhood called Galan Gura where schools, playground, parks, market and small vendor shops made available for yhe residents. Better to do small research before throwing a garbage to the readers.
The comparison between the Gaza Strip and the Kazanchis area of Addis Ababa is fundamentally flawed and demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the vastly different contexts. Equating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with an urban development project within a single city is not only irrelevant but also deeply insensitive, akin to comparing apples and oranges. The scale, nature, and historical context of these two situations are so dissimilar as to make any comparison meaningless and misleading.
Accusing the Kazanchis urban development project of “gentrification” is a mischaracterization and an inappropriate use of the term. The area was characterized by dilapidated housing, inadequate infrastructure, and a lack of essential services. The government has a responsibility to improve such conditions and raise living standards. This redevelopment initiative aims to replace substandard housing with modern residences, create public spaces, and enhance the overall quality of life for residents.
The assertion that Kazanchis is being developed solely for the wealthy is inaccurate. A key focus of the project is the creation of public spaces and improved amenities, including parks, green areas, playgrounds, recreational facilities, and community centers, designed to benefit all residents, especially those less affluent.
Regarding compensation, it’s important to emphasize that efforts were made to compensate both legal property owners and informal residents. The provision of over a thousand shelters specifically for informal residents demonstrates a commitment to addressing the needs of everyone affected by the redevelopment, regardless of their formal housing status.
The claim that the project ignores residents’ livelihoods is also false. The development initiative has generated numerous employment opportunities, both directly through construction and indirectly through new businesses established in the area. These opportunities extend beyond Kazanchis, benefiting residents in neighboring areas like Gelan Gura and Lemi Kura. This can be easily confirmed by speaking with residents and local business owners in these locations.
In summary, the criticisms against the Kazanchis project seem to stem from incomplete information, biased viewpoints, and a misrepresentation of the facts. The project represents a substantial investment in Addis Ababa’s infrastructure and aims to improve residents’ living conditions. While large-scale development projects inevitably face challenges, the overall goal is to create a more liveable and equitable urban environment. Accusations of unethical practices and disregard for residents’ welfare are not supported by the evidence. This exaggerated and misleading narrative only serves to detract from the positive development taking place in Addis Ababa.
What shameful and egocentric journalism! the pros and cons of development are well-known; however, taking it this far and associating it with such an unspeakable phenomenon makes us to question your agenda and the well being of your career. By using the very word you did, your mind seems gentrified. Please seek help.
I hope Addis Insite reconsiders this article, as the comparison presented is flawed and lacks proper context. Rather than providing objective insight, the piece appears to reflect personal opinions without a comprehensive analysis of the situation.
One of the key shortcomings of the article is its failure to explain where the relocated residents were moved to, aside from simply stating that they were relocated. The critical question is not just whether they were relocated but whether their new living conditions are an improvement. For readers unfamiliar with the original state of Kazanchis, the article may seem compelling. However, as an urban professional who has conducted numerous assessments in the area and as a resident of Addis Ababa, I find the article to contain significant misinformation.
A well-rounded analysis should have provided a balanced perspective, highlighting the living conditions before redevelopment. It should have illustrated how deteriorated, overcrowded, and substandard the area was prior to the changes. While I acknowledge the concerns regarding the city administration’s lack of transparency and citizen participation in urban development projects, the approach taken in the article undermines the validity of these concerns by relying on exaggerated comparisons and incomplete information.
It is true that the numerous ongoing projects in Addis Ababa have their flaws. However, they also serve a purpose and, in many cases, contribute positively to improving residents’ quality of life. Criticism of urban policies is necessary, but it should be based on well-researched data rather than selective narratives. There are more constructive ways to highlight shortcomings in urban planning without resorting to misleading comparisons.
If the term “cleansing” is being used to describe urban displacement, then we must also recognize that the spread of incomplete and misleading information is, in its own way, a disservice to the public. A responsible critique should focus on presenting accurate data and fostering informed discussions rather than distorting reality.