At the October 24 London Society event Housing and the City: What role should housing play in the future of the City of London?, speakers Sue Pearson (GLERA, Chair), Jan-Marc Petroschka (Barbican Association, Chair), and Leyla Boulton (Bassishaw Councillor), argued the case for more residents in the Square Mile and their important role in the future vibrancy of the City and its status as a Local Authority. See their opening remarks below in the order as presented.
The other speakers were Dr Jack Brown (King’s College, lecturer in London Studies), Heather Cheesbrough (Town Planner), and Councillor Steve Goodman (Chair of CoL Housing and Almshouses Sub-committee), chaired by Dave Hill (On London publisher and editor).
leyla boulton
Speaking in her role as Councillor for Bassishaw (not as an FT journalist).
When I was elected in March, my initial goal as a councillor was to improve the governance of the City and explore scope to convert more unloved Grade B office space into housing, but I quickly discovered two big additional contradictions in the City’s operations.
The first was its fraught relationship with residents. The three councillors here are all representatives of the residential ward. I represent Bassishaw, which is a business ward with just one residential block. And so to redress that contradiction, the City often talks about the reset of its relationship with residents. And my colleague Mark Wheatley initiated a review on how to reform the governance of housing in the City, because after 30 years of neglect, an 84 million pound shortfall is the triple of what it was when it was being addressed by Sue Pearson as alderwoman.
And so the second big contradiction is Destination City. It’s this programme to restore footfall in the City that was lost during the pandemic. And its 42 page report on Destination City talks of an opportunity to turn the Square Mile “into a magnetic seven day destination” that is “not merely functional, but radiates livability”. This 42 page report makes no mention of residents anywhere, and yet we know that to make a place livable, I’m afraid underground golf courses are not going to cut it.
But the City has an inbuilt opposition to housing, because if you want to convert anything into housing, you need planning permission. And the reason for this is quite clearly due in part to the fact that the City does not like residents. They get in the way. They object to development projects, and politically, they’re out of sync with the majority of the councillors here, all 100 councillors, plus 25 aldermen for the smallest electorate in the country. So I’m looking forward to today’s debate to advance this conversation.
– Leyla Boulton
jan-marc petroschka
Chair of the Barbican Association, Treasurer of the Barbican and Golden Lane Neighbourhood Forum
1800
Look back 225 years, in 1801. The whole population of London counted about 1 million, and the Square Mile still provided a home for roughly 13% of the total population. Finsbury Circus, for example, was built in 1812 with large terrace houses to attract merchants and gentlemen.With the arrival of the railway and later the underground, the City’s population fell rapidly. People moved outwards in all directions to London’s vast suburbs. Many residential buildings were demolished to make way for office blocks. WW2 did the rest.
In 1951, the population of the City of London was just over 5,000. In our ward of Cripplegate, the population dropped from 14,000 before the war to a mere 48 in 1951. After the war housing was desperately needed, to house who had lost their homes, but also to have an electorate and secure the legitimacy of the Local Authority.
- Golden Lane Estate (1950-60s, 554 homes) – Islington to City, boundary changes in 1994
- Barbican Estate (1960-70s, over 2000 homes)
- Middlesex Street Estate (1965-70, 234 homes)
delivering a wide spectrum of housing from directors of banks to blue collar and key workers.
In 1991 the City’s population reached its lowest point, counting only 3,860. I guess many of the City’s homes served as pied-a-terre for people working in the City.
Since then, people have returned to LIVING IN THE CITY:
- Gentrification and regeneration had a focus on central and urban areas
- London has moved further east
- Dramatic increase in land values /property prices
- Changing demographics and lifestyles
Modern flats in new and old blocks, former factories, warehouses and offices have become desirable for professionals, students, and families. And as for the Barbican, people are downsizing and retiring in a location where everything is at your doorstep.
In 2021 the City population counted 8,600 (caveat of Covid). Latest estimates by the Local Government Association put that figure at 15,000. (Needs to be fact checked, what is the source, where is the evidence?)
In the last five years London’s population increased by roughly 1 million. We urgently need to provide more housing, and the City of London as one of most well-off local authorities and due its central location should make its fair-share contribution. It is a civic responsibility.
That is twofold.
- Firstly, there is the general contribution towards housing needs of the capital and the country.
- Secondly, there is the need of the City’s existing population.
The BGLNF [Barbican and Golden Lane Neighbourhood Forum] commissioned a Housing Need Analysis as part of our plan making process. In the 10 years between 2011 and 2021 over 600 new housing units were created in our neighbourhood alone (-200 YMCA move to Islington), within the Barbican (Frobisher Crescent – 69 units), (Blake Tower –74), and other sites/land belonging to the City: Heron Towner – 284 units, Clarendon Court (Denizen) – 99 units. Further the conversion of a post war office block: Roman House – 90 units.
But where is future growth going now?
- Without any site allocations in the 2040 plan, and
- When redevelopment sites, such as London Wall West do not offer an iota of housing – while policy HS1 states that ‘new housing will be encouraged on suitable sites in or near identified residential areas’.
- The next 3 years deliver approximately 94% of the City’s housing target though student housing (579), only 6% conventional homes (37).
- The five-year trajectory sees no further conventional homes but student housing and co-living schemes.
- While co-living and student housing help to alleviate the housing crisis, more conventional homes are need.
- Without active planning, the City is very unlikely to hit its target over the lifetime of the plan.
Over 75
I pick out the need for one demographic group in our neighbourhood: We have an aging population. With a projected increase of over 120% of 75+, there is an urgent need to provide specialist housing in the community, instead of moving people out of borough, away from family and friends. This is a tight-knit community.121 – 134 specialist housing units + at least 30 care home bedspaces (or equivalent) are needed. Think of the Stirling Price winning Appleby Blue Almshouse in Southwark: which sets a new benchmark for older people’s social housing. It should be the duty of the City to take responsibility, to think ahead, and to be leading as it once was with its post-war housing estates. We have to look at social housing, at housing young families, etc, but I think Sue is going to address some of those pressing needs and the failings of the City.
But it is about much more than carrying its fair share.
It is about what we want the City to be in the future. A monolithic amalgamation of office space? A centre of commerce it is, undoubtedly. But it can and should be much more. Historically, it was always mixed use, tightly packed – at least for over 1800 of its 2000 years.
We have some 28 conservation areas in the City. One of the most beautiful building stocks in the country – if not the world. A white city largely clad in Portland stone. We should be careful protecting and working with this unique historic character and quality – the genius loci – which makes the City such a beautiful and interesting place.
Think of redevelopment of the area around St. Barts Hospital where careful planning created a dialogue between old and new, and a vibrant urban environment with uses such as office, education, health, hospitality and housing – side by side.
Many of the City’s existing building stock may not be able to meet the expectations and requirements of modern office space. Many may be well suitable for conversion to residential. This should have been equally assessed by the LPA for the 2040 plan. And as it has not, it should be done now.
A monocultural business district will hardly attract workers or visitors – or support or sustain Destination City. To reduce the City to a real estate bonanza without looking at, and planning and securing long term qualities, will in the end devalue buildings and location.
We need a balance:
- Inviting streets, squares and green spaces to rest, to meeting, to play.
- Sky and light.
- A mix of uses that bring a place alive, which may include health, hospitality, culture, commerce, education – and housing.
- A healthy resident population with their eyes and feet on the street, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.
- A population that animates and sustains vital services, supermarkets, shops, markets, restaurants etc, whether as consumers or as workers.
Think of Cheapside, its failed attempt to turn the Oxford Street of the old city back into a lively commercial street. Much easier to sustain with people living in the City. Without site allocations (emerging City Plan 2040) there is little evidence that there is any plan or will for integrating housing into the Square Mile. Nevertheless, it should be in the City’s self-interest not only to remain a leading financial centre but to become an animated 24/7 location … and a healthy resident population is a vital part of this.
– Jan-Marc Petroschka
sue pearson
Chair of GLERA, co-chair of Barbican and Golden Lane Neighbourhood Forum, former Alderwoman and Common Councillor for Cripplegate.
I believe that HOMES in the City are vital to its future and I use the term home because housing is a number, home is where you live and work. Without homes the City will eventually die. Covid highlighted this when in surrounding boroughs, small businesses, café’s, shops, hairdressers flourished, whilst in the City, with its very few homes, they died and many have not returned.
Post war the City had a very small population and could have been rebuilt as a purely commercial district, but there was a vision and an understanding that business needs an infrastructure, an invisible backbone of people supporting the business and their workers, like cleaners, security staff, nurses and police. These people needed homes close to their work because of the hours they worked and their relatively low pay. Golden Lane Estate was born and Middlesex Street was redeveloped with this in mind.
I am the lucky recipient of the Right to Buy legislation in the 1980’s; when I moved to Golden Lane Estate nearly half the homes had been sold, but the estate still fulfils a vital function. The social homes are occupied by many who work in service industries in the City, families with young children, and older folk who worked here for years. I do believe that social housing is a must for the City. The Corporation should see the value of providing homes, not just as a moral issue but as the support that is needed for the offices they create and to make the City a vibrant place, not just another anodyne world financial centre, but a living, creative, idiosyncratic, 15 minute city.
So yes, the Corporation should be building new homes in the City. It owns land that could be used, rather than building in other boroughs BUT first and foremost they should be maintaining the homes that they have. Golden Lane Estate, which is grade 2 and 2* listed, looks and feels like a sink estate. There has been little or no maintenance for 20 years, not even a lick of paint. What should be a gem, because in terms of the design the flats are beautifully crafted, has been left to run into disrepair with the reoccurring promise of improvement projects to come… Always next year. I moved to the Estate in 2008 and was told I would have new windows in the next 5 years. 17 years later nothing has been done. The current programme, delayed by over 2 years because of the Corporations negligence in its failure to register some of the blocks as Higher Risk buildings in October 2023, has meant that an ‘escalated’ programme will stretch on for 10 years, by which time some of us will probably be dead.
Black Raven Court, a Corporation development of 66 flats built in Islington and a sliver of City land next to Golden Lane Estate was started during covid and was due to be completed in late 2022. The flats are finished but still unoccupied.
Which brings me to the crux of this whole debate – The role that housing should play in the future of the City of London… as a Local Authority. The City would make up a small ward or two in Westminster, Islington, Camden or Tower Hamlets, taking account of the number of its residents. Its housing stock is relatively small as are most of its local authority functions but one vital part of being a Local Authority is its power as a Planning Authority. As far as residents are concerned, losing that power may not be a bad thing!
There has always been an uncomfortable relationship between Central Government and the City Corporation which last manifested itself in the 1990’s when the 1991 census showed the City’s population to be just 3861 people. Boundary changes scooped Golden Lane from Islington and Mansell Street from Tower Hamlets which increased the city’s resident population but in 1999 – with the new GLA and Mayor of London – reformist looked for change, the Corporation’s legitimacy to govern was attacked, not least because of its relationship with residents. In 2002 Wards were rearranged and councillor numbers reduced, and in the end, As Cathy Ross says in her book about City residents, it was the residents who were protecting the non-resident City as much as the city protecting its residents.
Today, and looking forward, I question the legitimacy of the Corporation, thinking of their failure to support their residents over the last 20 years, their failure to maintain their homes, their failure to develop their own land for homes for people who provide the unseen backbone to the financial City and who work to make the City a destination.
The City of London, as a Local Authority SHOULD play a huge role in providing housing and particularly social homes… sadly, although it clearly has the land and the money, I have little faith in its moral compass and the desire to help to create here, in the City, some those 880,000 new homes needed in London in the next 10 years. I think the City, as a Local Authority may have outlived its usefulness, it is no longer protecting its residents, so why should residents protect it?
– Sue Pearson
NOTE: the book referenced by Sue: ‘Dwell I Never: The City of London’s Lost Residents’ by Cathy Ross (2024) – the story of how the City of London ended up with very few residents and very tall buildings.
