Opinion is divided about how London’s property footprint can be densified. Should the capital build up, down, or outwards? Or be made denser in other ways?
Proverbial wisdom suggests that it is difficult to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. Yet it certainly is possible to fit more built space within Greater London’s boundaries. Anthony Lee, joint head of residential at BNP Paribas Real Estate, says: “London is a low-density city by international standards, although there are clearly significant variations across the capital. If introduced sensibly, higher densities make better use of land and can deliver benefits to local residents, as demonstrated through numerous examples across London.”
In fact there is now a broad consensus that densification of the capital is necessary, but there is much less clarity about how that will be achieved. The most obvious and, second only to building on green belt land, the most contentious way forward for the capital, is to build higher. However, Lee believes that while tall buildings are clearly part of the solution, particularly where they are well served by public transport and close to employment centres, there are other options that should be part of the capital’s future mix.
He points to research from London First (see separate comment below) that shows well-connected, low-density areas could deliver an additional 1.4m homes if they matched the density of other similarly well-connected schemes. “A sensitive reassessment of the London Plan’s density matrix could help unlock some of this development,” says Lee.
Mid-rise buildings, mansion-style homes and terraced housing are more likely to be appropriate in outer London, suggests Lee, while the addition of a few extra storeys onto existing blocks of flats could preserve the character of suburban areas.
Ultimately, though, the politically difficult issue of how low-amenity greenbelt land could better serve London’s housing needs will need to be tackled. Lee says: “If London is to accommodate an estimated 11m people by 2050 it will not only need to build upwards, but also outwards.”
What do other members of the London Forum think?
Tom Copley, London-wide member (Labour), London Assembly
“When talking about density we need to be clear that high rise and high density are not the same thing. Higher density can often be achieved with low and medium rise development rather than with tall buildings. Therefore our focus as a city should be on delivering lower to medium rise high density schemes. Sometimes this will not be possible, given the location and size of the land a development is being built on. But our goal should be delivering the kind of homes people want to live in and can afford.”
Simon Cookson, Partner & Sector head of real estate, DLA Piper
“Building down is a good solution for a homeowner in prime central London but is not viable on a large scale. Meanwhile, mansion-style building would be more acceptable in various respects but there is not enough space in London to make this a large-scale option. In recent months we have seen more mixed retail schemes with residential blocks above, and large scale freeholder retailers bringing forward schemes to get more value from their land. Planning authorities are in our experience largely on board with this.”
Nick Belsten, Director and head of central London office, Indigo Planning
“Transport accessibility is crucial to support higher density. There are some locations across London that already benefit from good transport accessibility but where surrounding development density is relatively low – these are the locations where immediate opportunities exist to increase density without the need for substantial infrastructure investment.
When done properly, a higher density environment can deliver many benefits that not only demonstrate an efficient use of land but which also help support improved shopping and leisure amenities, diverse local services and social infrastructure.”
Bill Page, Business space research manager, LGIM Real Assets
“Like other UK cities London is not overbuilt but is under-demolished. With local authorities keen to protect employment uses, but facing such compelling demand – and public pressure – for residential, then new mixed use becomes intuitive. Residential and office needs to be above ground but logistics, and to some extent retail (see Canary Wharf) does not. We are already seeing basement logistics in residential-led schemes and, as technology improves making logistics functions quieter and more efficient, this should be easier to achieve without noise or air pollution. Vertical mixed use will become an integral part of our urban fabric.”
David Waterhouse, Associate director, strategic development, Design Council Cabe
“Different development solutions are required in different locations. Given the increased housing numbers that the next London Plan will need to deliver, a wide range of housing types will be needed. Building dense does not necessarily mean building tall, but in a city with a rapidly increasing population the wise use of land is paramount.
The design of all development remains of critical concern and authorities should ensure they have robust design assessment processes in place, capable of looking at the impacts of increased densities and greater numbers of housing units.”
John Dickie, Director of strategy and policy, London First
“Building at greater density must be done in a way that keeps London an attractive place to live and work. Higher housing density can be an emotive subject, particularly amongst local communities that are understandably concerned about past poor development. But now things are different. Lessons have been learned and there is no one-size-fits-all densification strategy for London. Higher density development delivers many benefits for existing residents by creating the critical mass of people that supports more shops, better and more diverse local services, and improved social and transport infrastructure.”
Mark Simmons
