Londons a-changin

cells

During the 1950s/60s/70s the population of London fell from 8.16 million to 6.61 million. This fall of 1.55 million combined with building ~600,000 additional homes meant that by 1991 London had more homes per capita than all the other regions of England.

Then everything changed. London went into fifth gear and saw its population boom from 6.9 million to 8.2 million between 1991-2011 such that by the end of the period London had the least homes per capita.

So a total reversal from the most homes to the least.

But that is all history, what about the future?

Can London do the same again, ie absorb 28% of the UKs population increase as it did in the 2001-2011 period? If not what will happen?

Between 2011-2031 the UK will see some 9 to 10 million added to its population. Can London take 2.7 million of that to become a city of ~11 million?

Is that possible?

I don't think so. What happened between 1991-2011 was rare, very rare, a capital city with more homes per capita than the rest of the country. This meant London had room to "fill up". Its occupancy rate went from something around 2.15 to closer to 2.4 today.

So if London cannot take 2.7 million people that means the future is going to be different from the past.

What will the result be?

How far can London grow considering the green belt limits its physical size?

Will occupancy rates in London have to increase to meet population demands and what will that mean?

theEnd

Interesting stuff.

I don't remember it being less crowded in the 90s? You'd think a 23% increase in population would be massive.

I'm also not convinced it will continue to rise. The economic allure of London isn't what it was in the past. The population of Europe is about to fall.

I guess anything could happen.

AndyGuil

Green belt only limits growth in a few areas. Generally London is growing. It is just harder to build properties closer to the centre where the greatest demand is. I have no doubt the population will grow. It is a long way behind other major cities.

michaels

theEnd wrote: »

Interesting stuff.

I don't remember it being less crowded in the 90s? You'd think a 23% increase in population would be massive.

I'm also not convinced it will continue to rise. The economic allure of London isn't what it was in the past. The population of Europe is about to fall.

I guess anything could happen.

At first glance depopulation would seem to suggest reduced migration - countries with a falling poulation should have fewer workers chasing the jobs, fewer people chasing the houses leading to lower prices/more space etc etc leading to less pressure for the young to move away to seek their fortunes..... however a quick glance at cities like Detroit suggest it doesn't quite work that way

cells

AndyGuil wrote: »

Green belt only limits growth in a few areas. Generally London is growing. It is just harder to build properties closer to the centre where the greatest demand is. I have no doubt the population will grow. It is a long way behind other major cities.

But how can it grow?

In the past 20 years it grew largely because it went from having the most homes per capita to having the least homes per capita.

ie its occupancy rate went from something like 2.15 to 2.40

The only way to continue to grow is either

Build more homes: How and where? Although London saw a much bigger population increase % wise than the rest of the UK...it built about HALF as many homes. As mentioned the only way the two worked was that its occupancy rate increased dramatically.

Increase Occupancy rate further? Is this possible this time around? Can London go from 2.4 occupancy rate to say...2.7? I don't think so! last time was very special in that London was at the lowest occupancy rate so that had room to grow. This time its already the highest so has no room to grow

Build more dense? This is possible but it will be expensive to buy/knock down/rebuild more dense. Will there be resistance to this? Do Londoners want to see their remaining semis knocked down and replaced by flats? And their large homes converted to small flats?

cells

theEnd wrote: »

Interesting stuff.

I'm also not convinced it will continue to rise. The economic allure of London isn't what it was in the past. The population of Europe is about to fall.

I guess anything could happen.

The 'allure' is strong, the only thing resisting more people coming and convincing some to leave are house prices.

The old trick of increasing occupancy rates has already played out. So from now on Londons population growth will be limited by its new home build rate. In the past 10 years London built about half as many homes (per capita) vs the other regions yet its population boomed even more than the other regions because it has this occupancy capacity

Going forward if London builds at the same rate as the last decade, she will have some ~300,000 more homes which can house 720,000 people. So London population growth is about to be servery contained to a level almost 1/3rd of that of the 2001-2011 period

AndyGuil

cells wrote: »

But how can it grow?

In the past 20 years it grew largely because it went from having the most homes per capita to having the least homes per capita.

ie its occupancy rate went from something like 2.15 to 2.40

The only way to continue to grow is either

Build more homes: How and where? Although London saw a much bigger population increase % wise than the rest of the UK...it built about HALF as many homes. As mentioned the only way the two worked was that its occupancy rate increased dramatically.

Increase Occupancy rate further? Is this possible this time around? Can London go from 2.4 occupancy rate to say...2.7? I don't think so! last time was very special in that London was at the lowest occupancy rate so that had room to grow. This time its already the highest so has no room to grow

Build more dense? This is possible but it will be expensive to buy/knock down/rebuild more dense. Will there be resistance to this? Do Londoners want to see their remaining semis knocked down and replaced by flats? And their large homes converted to small flats?

I don't think building more densely will be the primary focus. Building out will be. There are a lot of new stations and properties being built outwards. London will just grow out consuming what is left of greater London and take more of the surrounding counties as it has done before. The demandis there and a lot of people are moving to London.

Generali

AndyGuil wrote: »

I don't think building more densely will be the primary focus. Building out will be. There are a lot of new stations and properties being built outwards. London will just grow out consuming what is left of greater London and take more of the surrounding counties as it has done before. The demandis there and a lot of people are moving to London.

The obvious thing to do is what has been done in the past: convert houses into flats.

BigAunty

Generali wrote: »

The obvious thing to do is what has been done in the past: convert houses into flats.

In South London where I once was stupid enough to live, the local council expressly forbid permission to convert certain size family properties into flats which meant most houses were refused planning permission to be converted into smaller properties.

The planning policy explicitly said this was in place to prevent the loss of family size housing, especially given the high BME population there that tended to have larger size families.

It made me angry at the time as my partner and I had split up and were happy to divide our property between us, it would have cost about 20k. Instead we had to sell up.

However, thinking more widely around it, I now support that policy.

I've lived in poor conversions in Brighton whereby you could hear all the neighbours in their rabbit hutch properties, where the mail was stolen, where dodgy friends and relatives hung about, the rubbish disposal was very poor, the common areas subject to littering and bicycles being stolen. It led to a lot of churn in neighbours, a very transient community.

Brighton has a lot of converted properties and its density isn't nice. Wouldn't want that inflicted on Londoners as its too crowded anyhow, it just leads to buildings, and then whole streets and then local communities becoming scruffy.

Loughton_Monkey

I was in London the other day in Butler's Wharf. Not far from where I used to have a flat. The EA windows are exclusively full of flats at around £1.6 million a pop. Lots seem to be going up as well. This is the only way in London.

Many people don't want the traditional semi with front & back garden.

One good thing about dealing with very high density population in high-rise is that you get a very vibrant street level with every building crammed full of businesses... coffee houses, restaurants, and other retailers you might normally see in a high rise.

cells

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Many people don't want the traditional semi with front & back garden.
.

oh they do, they just cant afford it

eg look at the price per sqm of a mews house in kensington vs a flat