The fast-track land reform programme in Zimbabwe (in 2000) provided a platform for popular movement of people to access land in and around cities legally and illegally. This mass movement, analysed from an urban perspective, signified a determined occurrence by the general populace to shrug off decades of denial to the city and its associated benefits. This chapter analyses the acquisition of land and the eventual emergence of housing on such land. These houses, while accepted by beneficiaries, were scorned and criticised by others who saw the informalisation of urban space under the guise of social justice. At the centre of these dynamics were tenure issues which, despite the government’s determination to protect beneficiaries in the newly acquired space, still left a cloud of uncertainty. This was not surprising given that successive Zimbabwean governments have failed to embrace popular modes of housing production in the past. Informal housing schemes have always been treated with apathy and indifference—hence whenever they mushroomed, they were ruthlessly destroyed. What could have changed the scenario in 2000? In response to this question, this paper analysed emerging housing schemes in Harare and noted that the tenure status of beneficiaries was varied with “chance” and “determination” being the most determinant among most of them. In a bid to unravel the structural determinants of these developments, the study’s main focus was in the period 2000 to 2009. The author employed both qualitative and quantitative research methods using mapping, interviews and observations in order to collect data. The selected housing schemes of Nehanda Housing Scheme provided cross-cutting perspectives that enabled the extrapolation of key findings at both city and national levels. The findings emanating from this study show that the FTLRP provided a platform for innovativeness among key stakeholders and was fuelled by the unpronounced national urban vision and the prowess of the political leadership—thus guarantying low-income households’ the right to the city despite prevailing challenges of infrastructure.