In the depths of a housing crisis and under pressure to deliver some 880,000 new homes in the next 10 years, the focus in London has been on the potential of the Green Belt and on unblocking stalled sites in the Mayor’s earmarked “opportunity areas”. But what about the Square Mile?
That was the topic for the latest session in The London Society’s programme of events exploring ways to meet the capital’s housing need. It took place at New London Architecture’s London Centre behind the Guildhall at the heart of the City of London, and was chaired by On London publisher and editor Dave Hill, who is also a London Society trustee.
While hosting some 650,000 workers, the City houses just 8,600 residents. But in the past, said Dr Jack Brown of King’s College, lecturer in London Studies and City expert who set the scene for the discussion, it had been home to hundreds of thousands. More residential development now, he said, could bring both environmental and economic benefits to the area, as well as contributing to the capital’s overall housing targets.
There was no disagreement from the speakers, who included recently elected City common councillor and Financial Times journalist Leyla Boulton, Steve Goodman, chair of the City Corporation’s housing management sub-committee, architect and Barbican Residents Association chair Jan-Marc Petroschka, and former common councillor, now chair of the Golden Lane Estate Residents Association, Sue Pearson.
The corporation had a “civic responsibility” to London as a whole to provide more housing, said Goodman, speaking in a personal capacity. He cast doubt on the Guildhall’s forecast requirement for an extra 1.2 million square feet of office space by 2040. This forms the centrepiece of its new City Plan blueprint for future development in the Square Mile, expected to be in place next year. “I don’t believe that,” Goodman said. “We don’t know what the City will look like in 2040. But that is the main driver of City policy.”
Other major cities worldwide were already encouraging more homes in their financial centres, he said, highlighting the amount of existing office space that has become unsuitable for modern requirements and could potentially be converted for residential use. “More key worker homes would be a wonderful legacy for the corporation to leave,” he suggested.
Without more homes, Pearson added, “the City will eventually die. It needs to be vibrant. We don’t want another anodyne financial centre.” And pointing out that the area’s population is now growing from its low point of 3,860 residents, Petroschka called for an immediate Guildhall investigation to identify those “stranded” offices suitable for conversion, particularly within the Square Mile’s 28 conservation areas.
He singled out the modernist Bastion House next to the former Museum of London on the southern corner of the Barbican estate, which is now subject, along with the museum building, to replacement with contemporary office space, as “ideal for conversion to residential use”. The Guildhall’s decision to approve the demolition plans is now subject to a pending judicial review brought by the Barbican Quarter Action group.
It’s a nuanced picture, of course. The Guildhall is currently more than meeting its current target of 146 new homes a year as set in Sir Sadiq Khan’s London Plan, and is projecting almost 2,500 new homes by 2039/40, said London Society trustee and experienced town planner Heather Cheesbrough. And as well as the Barbican, Golden Lane and Middlesex Street estates which are within the Square Mile, the corporation also manages some 1,800 tenancies on 11 estates elsewhere in the capital, and is proposing 4,000 new homes on the current Billingsgate fish market site in Poplar.
The corporation itself was not represented at the meeting. But Hill reported that in the course of a recent interview for On London, the City’s leader, Chris Hayward, had said that although in his view the City would “always be a business City” and not “swing towards” being residential, he accepted that most of its housing stock was “in need of substantial regeneration and investment” and that there was a need to “build affordable housing for young City professionals”.
Hayward had added that, lacking sufficient funds in its housing revenue account, the City will “need to look for private partnerships to regenerate those housing estates” and was already in discussion to that end with “a whole number of providers and investors”.
Were there any prospects for a change of emphasis? Modifications to the City Plan agreed with the inspector at its recent examination in public include redefining its new homes target as a “minimum requirement”, with the corporation to “work in collaboration with the Mayor of London” to “identify additional capacity” as Sir Sadiq’s new London Plan comes forward.
Furthermore, the Mayor’s initial “Towards a New London Plan” document also suggests that areas within the Central Activities Zone, which includes the Square Mile, could “play a greater role in housing delivery” where they already accommodate housing, and that there might also be opportunities for “repurposing lower grade office stock for housing”.
But the City plan, as Cheesbrough pointed out, remained “reactive not proactive”, relying on “windfall” provision of new housing rather than allocating specific sites. And it reiterates that “new housing must not prejudice the primary business function of the City”.
Speakers weren’t optimistic, despite believing that having more people living in the Square Mile would help to make a success of its Destination City growth programme. “The City does not like residents, they get in the way,” said Boulton. “Residents are a nuisance to planners,” said Goodman. “It’s very clear that housing is at the end of line,” added Petroschka. The relationship between the Guildhall and its residents, as one speaker put it, appears to remain fraught.
Follow Charles Wright on Bluesky. Photo: Bini Nandra.
OnLondon.co.uk provides unique coverage of the capital’s politics, development and culture with no paywall and no ads. Nearly all its income comes from individual supporters. For £5 a month or £50 a year they receive in-depth newsletters and London event offers. Pay via any Support link on the website or by becoming a paying subscriber to publisher and editor Dave Hill’s Substack.