Opinion / Alexis Self
Ugly truth
Coming of age in London during the early 2000s cultivated in me an urban arrogance. Awash with foreign capital and bustling with ambitious newcomers, the city was booming in a way that it hadn’t been since the 1900s. Standing on Primrose Hill or Parliament Hill, one could see this success made manifest, as an army of cranes drew shiny spires from the rich soil.
But one thing baffled me: why were these new buildings so uniformly dull? Now that London isn’t as fruitful as it then was, we’re left with the greige cores of its millennial triumph. Many residents are adamant that such an assault on the primary sense won’t be allowed to happen again. Across the city, new developments are met with petitions, pickets and passive-aggressive daubings.
I can sympathise with these, well, Nimbys. Indeed, one such battle is taking place in my back garden. My local residents’ WhatsApp group roils with discontent. All the objections are perennial and all well-founded: a new 10,000-home development that will block out sunlight, increase traffic and produce a lot more noise. But perhaps its gravest crime is its ugliness.
London’s housing shortage isn’t just a social crisis – it’s an environmental one too. Researchers at the University of Texas have found that residents in low-density areas produce more greenhouse gas emissions than those in high-density ones. The solution, of course, is to build more homes in inner cities close to public transport and jobs. The irony is that it’s often those residents who most want to fight climate change who are more likely to oppose developments that will do just that.
Affluent, socially liberal city dwellers can be the most extreme Nimbys. But perhaps their ire wouldn’t be so fierce if what was being built weren’t so aesthetically offensive. In the postwar era, London’s councils teemed with ambitious urban planners. The result: design classics such as Trellick Tower in Kensal Green, the Barbican Estate and Camden’s Alexandra Road Estate (pictured). While it’s true that these were labelled ugly at the time, they were undeniably the work of Europe’s best architects. Few, if any, of the city’s 21st-century edifices will enjoy a similar reappraisal. However, if municipal governments were given more revenue from their land and housing, they could use it to attract the brightest and best. Then we might bejewel the urban pincushion rather than bespoil it and new developments could be built with local blessing rather than in spite of local protest.