Richard Brown: More city centre living could strengthen London, but change must be made with care

Richard Brown: More city centre living could strengthen London, but change must be made with care

As the weather improves and lockdown restrictions are relaxed, life is ebbing back onto the streets of central London. People who were commuting in daily just over a year ago are beginning to revisit a city centre that is both familiar and utterly transformed – and to think about its future.

There are still more questions than answers about that future. How much remote working will persist, and how will much-discussed models of “hybrid working” play out? Will employers reduce their demands for workspace and will any surplus space be picked up by new arrivals attracted by lower rents? How quickly can tourist and international student numbers recover, and how will shops, pubs and restaurants cope if both commuting and tourism remain suppressed?

These uncertainties are likely to persist for months, but some slackening in demand for office and retail space is widely expected, as working and consumption patterns change and employers rethink their needs. Some premises might be adapted by cultural and community organisations for experimental pop-ups and meanwhile uses, but it is likely that new residential development will play a part too.

This could actually help build the city’s resilience. As Centre for London set out just before the pandemic bit, central London’s population has been growing fast over the past decade, but the city centre is still less densely populated than Paris or New York. So when coronavirus brought commuting and tourism to a standstill, central London and its businesses were particularly hard hit by the loss of trade and have continued to struggle as restrictions have been successively relaxed, re-imposed and relaxed again.

So more people living in the city centre is not only likely but desirable, as was underlined in Arup’s recent report for the Greater London Authority on the future of the Central Activities Zone (CAZ):

“A higher CAZ residential population, to offer more sustainable lifestyles, resilience, increased vibrancy and ‘stewardship’ of the CAZ’s resources for others, and bringing London more into line with its global rivals.”

But allowing more residential development or conversion in central London is not straightforward. The current London Plan and borough planning documents give the CAZ and Canary Wharf special status to protect the clustering and density of “strategic functions” (for example global commerce, education, culture, government and tourism) and give these uses priority over housing. This protection, the argument goes, preserves the essential character of central London as a truly global city centre and the economic powerhouse of the UK.

How could more housing be brought into the mix without diluting these qualities and this global draw? Should new build and conversions be pepper-potted through the CAZ, or focused in a few neighbourhoods? And can office and retail conversions retain flexibility or is any switch to housing a permanent change?

Some parts of central London and some building types look a lot more inhabitable than others. Big open-plan offices, as found in the heart of the City and Canary Wharf, are unlikely to be adapted as easily as older buildings in the West End, Clerkenwell, Bloomsbury and the South Bank, which have switched from houses to flats to offices and now perhaps back to housing over the years.

There are also issues of management and services. How would potential disputes between residents and businesses be resolved over night-time deliveries, late-night crowds leaving bars and nightclubs, parking and vehicle access? And where will health services and schools be located, as well as everyday shops?

All of these factors suggest that a remixing of London’s city centre will need to be carefully managed, not left to the free-for-all of “permitted development” from office to residential uses that the government is proposing – and which has led to some truly atrocious conversions of commercial buildings. Central London currently has exemptions from permitted development, but these expire in summer 2022, and London’s boroughs will soon need to start making the case for renewing them.

Central London is a dynamic and creative place. As we emerge from the pandemic into a world that is still being reshaped, Centre for London hopes to explore how we can apply that dynamism and creativity to refresh its mix of uses, as well as to support the national recovery.

Richard Brown is (until Wednesday!) interim director of Centre For London, on whose website this article originally appeared. Read Centre for London’s recovery plan for the West End, which Richard-co-authored, here. And follow Richard on Twitter.

On London is a small but influential website which strives to provide more of the kind of  journalism the capital city needs. It depends on financial help from readers and is able to offer them something in return. Please consider becoming a supporter. Details here.

Categories: Comment


  1. Cllr Geoff Barraclough says:

    We were disappointed that the new Westminster City Plan doesn’t address the need to plan for residential population growth in the West End. Some areas are more appropriate than others for living accommodation. And we all know that if we have more people, we also need more schools, GP’s and food shops. Where are these going to go?

    In addition, as the article points out, if residential is permitted next to restaurants and night-clubs, we risk undermining the night time economy as residents object to late opening and loud music. Again, strategy and forethought would be welcome.

    More people in Central London is a good thing. But it needs to be carefully thought through and properly planned rather than left the vagaries of free-market property development.

  2. JRichards says:

    Unless the government, the GLA and LAs start to take the concept of residential ‘amenity’ seriously it would be more appropriate to be proposing evacuation of residents from central London than an increase in numbers. Air and noise pollution are still much too high, harming residents’ health (especially that of children). In many central areas it is simply not possible to get the good 8 hours sleep that is essential for health, and the business sector and authorities are even supporting ‘the 24 hour city’, the 24/7 cacophony of which only makes city centre dwelling even more debilitating.

    ‘Vibrancy’ is, as usually, cited as a beneficial characteristic of the centre of London. In reality this means nocturnal drunken people roaring, shrieking and caterwauling their way around the West End and beyond, numbers only tailing off at about 3.00am; pedicabs circulating around the streets with sound systems booming at what sounds like 100 dB again up to about 3am; police sirens wailing at all hours of the day and night; waste collections and deliveries vehicles rat running through residential streets at any time of night; and an endless background noise, of low frequency, that hardly ever stops, perhaps the combined sound of the huge numbers of air plant on rooftops, in basement walls, and at ground level.

    The pandemic gave London government and businesses the chance to thoroughly rethink London, to work out how to reduce the pressure on the central areas and to devise far better legal and practical protections for clean air and quiet late evenings and nights than we currently have. Local areas all over London need to be redesigned, rebuilt as green and attractive destinations, each with its own characteristics, with arts and theatre, music venues, restaurants and bars, local attractions and venues, so that Londoners and tourists have a far greater choice of where to go, what locale to visit.

    The redesign could incorporate, for example, leaving vehicles on the main road, and relocating residential areas around vehicle-free ‘village greens’, along with play areas, local high street shops, cafes, and hubs for people working at home. This needs leadership, vision and creativity, and such extensive and radical change would take serious funding. Only in a time of pandemic and subsequent regeneration might government have been persuaded that this should be the way forward for London.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *