BoJo or Ken? Who will be the winner for the real estate industry?
This article was produced by Olswang LLP, which joined with CMS on 1 May 2017.
In anticipation of the mayoral election tomorrow, the headlines have been filled with retrospectives on the changes brought about by Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone during their terms as Mayor of London and speculations about what a new term for either would mean for the city. The attitudes of Johnson and Livingstone towards planning and property have been much debated, and on the eve of the election, the question of who we would prefer as an industry has gone from hypothetical debate to pressing reality.
Ken Livingstone during his term as mayor adopted Lord Rogers’ idea of the “compact city“, that rather than letLondon sprawl horizontally into the green belt, the city should be condensed and intensified. Livingstone pursued a policy of growth, particularly in respect of the development of buildings that would accommodate the (then) growing financial services sector. Also an outspoken advocate of affordable housing, according to a recent EGi poll, Livingstone is regarded as best-placed to tackleLondon’s need for more affordable homes, with 53% compared with Johnson’s 33%. However, it is for his towers that Livingstone is most remembered byLondon’s construction and property sector: the Shard, now nearing completion, serves as a powerful visual reminder of Livingstone’s support of the densification ofLondon. Indeed, during his term as mayor, Livingstone famously anticipated an average of one tall building being constructed annually inCanaryWharf and the City.
By contrast, Boris Johnson has been somewhat criticised by the industry for his opposition of the construction of numerous high-rise schemes inLondon. Indeed, under Johnson,Rogers’ vision of hyper density and concentrated growth was replaced by that of the late Simon Milton, a fierce critic of towers and one of Boris’ first appointments as Mayor of London. Armed with new powers to overturn local councils’ decisions in respect of planning permissions, Johnson’s cautious approach to tall buildings had the potential to become a source of real industry debate. However, the recession has reduced the controversy by carrying out his policy on his behalf, forcing many developers to postpone or shelve ambitious schemes. Indeed, in a poll by Berwin Leighton Paisner, in which 70+ ofLondon’s developers were surveyed about their opinions of the mayoral candidates, Johnson secured approval on seven out of nine issues.
The question, then, is whether the industry would favour the return of a mayoral policy which endorses tall buildings? Towers undoubtedly constitute a solution to shortage of space in densely populated contexts where land is at a premium: Hong Kong, Tokyoand New Yorkhave all embraced high-rise in such a context. Furthermore, developers and architects welcome the opportunity of transforming London’s skyline and embracing the dynamism and modernity of the tower. Although Johnson’s position that “it’s vital that we ensure we strike the right balance, and protect our historic landmarks while at the same time allowing London’s economy to grow and prosper” will strike a note with the city’s more conservative voters, one wonders whether as an industry (not least an industry seeking to lift itself out of recession) we would prefer a mayor who embraces the potential of high-rise?
