Planning for residential ‘value’? London’s densification policies and impacts

Abstract

This paper considers the agency and influence of planning processes and densification policies on urban landscapes in London. Urban transformation through residential densification can bring opportunities for real estate development, combined with longer term investment and financial gains for local authorities through planning gain. However, the measurements and indicators used to define density and its impacts could be better understood both objectively and subjectively through the lens of an extended notion of 'value'. Such experiences of density can be viewed bluntly as positive or negative. This research investigates nuanced dimensions of density and adopts a primarily qualitative approach, reflecting on relevant literature and wider policy context through a discourse analysis relating to densification in London. The idea of elements of 'value' is explored and evaluated in ongoing developments through a detailed case study of Nine Elms, London. Quantitative data on the residential real estate market is used to illustrate investment flows. Conclusions consider best practice policy recommendations in relation to understandings of 'value'. POLICY RELEVANCE Lessons from London indicate how densification can be a viable option for both urban policy makers and practitioners when approaches adopt a flexible governance and planning approach, embedded in local context. Densification processes in planning and governance should be regularly reviewed and reconsidered in line with broader national and city-wide policies, optimising rather than maximising density. Both subjective and objective measurements should be accounted for, by reflecting on broad and informed indicators. The value created by densification processes should be the result of a weighted and broader assessment of variables: economic, social, and place-specific considerations. However, the often antagonistic, ambiguous nature of density and its application needs to be recognised by policy makers, regulators and actively involved parties (planners, developers, investors) to contribute to the creation of successful places.

Retain or remove? Decision-making of rural industrial park redevelopment in Nanhai District, China

“…Some researchers have argued that developing a detailed compensation plan and reaching an agreement for each residential unit requires significant research and coordination/ negotiation costs, especially in areas where there may be hundreds of residents with different needs (Jo Black and Richards, 2020). It has also been shown that substantial improvement in amenities and the size of housing can greatly increase resident satisfaction with the urban renewal process (Skevington et al, 2004;Mohit et al, 2010;Livingstone et al, 2021). The quality of soft resources such as education, healthcare, shopping, and transportation in older communities also affects residential willingness (Guo et al, 2018).…”

Urban densification considering sense of place and environmental justice – or not

“…Densification and how it affects residents' perception has been discussed by some scholars seeking to understand the social aspects of density (Lewis & Baldassare 2010;Cook et al 2012;Smith & Billig 2012;Arvola & Pennanen 2014;Nematollahi et al 2016). Perceptions and experiences of urban density are understood individually and highly influenced by the cultural, geographical, temporal and economic context (Alexander 1993;Livingstone et al 2021). There is often strong resistance from residents in local areas that originates in the uncertain social outcomes that are the product of new development.…”

Density as a politics of value: Regulation, speculation, and popular urbanism

“…This account connects densities 'here' with those present, gone or forming 'there', to a politics of value that accounts for the relational, processual production of density. Alongside the economic processes Smith described, policies such as rezoning or verticality restrictions work as part of a changing set of propositions about how urban space and life might be organised for certain economic ends, entrenching social inequalities (Atkinson, 2020;Graham, 2016;Livingstone et al, 2021;Lees et al, 2008).…”