Nick Hacking, Director and Head of Residential at AFK reflects on NLA latest debate on London's housing shortage focused on two contrasting approaches to urbanisation: building taller in the city or expanding outward into lower-density.

The latest debate in the NLA’s series on London's housing shortage focused on two contrasting approaches to urbanisation: building taller in the city or expanding outward into lower-density, commutable regions – "up" or "out"? While the oversimplification was acknowledged, it sparked the conversation for more the nuanced exploration around solutions to London’s urban challenges.

Jay Morton, Director at Bell Phillips Architects and chair of the event, highlighted the housing crisis we’re all too familiar with: London's housing supply is painfully short of its growing demand. The city delivers approximately 37,000 homes annually, far below the estimated need of 74,000 over the next 15 years. With new political leadership prioritising the issue, there is an opportunity to influence the agenda. However, do headline figures and the idea of developing the 'Grey-belt' truly grasp the complexity and scale of the problem?

William Poole, Partner at Howells, made the case for ‘up’. He started by emphasising the scale of the current pipeline (a lot of which at height) and how a smoother journey to realisation would see a sizable portion of our short-term demand addressed. More broadly the case was made for height as a low carbon development model, density saving on travel throughout the building’s lifespan, and larger buildings providing better form-factors meaning they will conserve or mitigate heat more effectively.

It was argued that London’s unique array of densities and open spaces, unlike the more homogenous urban pattern of cities like Paris, could support the strategic deployment of high-rise buildings without sacrificing life quality. However, he acknowledged the need to overcome negative public perceptions tied to poor-quality high-rise developments from the 1960s and more recent safety concerns. Consistently higher design quality would be essential to improving the reputation of tall buildings.

Ian Mulcahey, Principal and Global Director of Cities at Gensler, provided historical context, referencing the ambition of the Abercrombie’s post-war Greater London Plan. He argued that London has outgrown this framework and that the current scale of need is vastly underestimated. Instead of creating "new towns," Mulcahey advocated for "new cities"—self-sustaining economic hubs with strong connections to the capital.

He contended that merely adapting and intensifying London’s existing infrastructure would not deliver housing at the required quantity, quality or speed. Development beyond the greenbelt offers the chance to design modern urban centres with world-leading living standards.

The debate began with a vote on whether London should build "up" or "out." Unsurprisingly, 71% of the audience—comprised largely of industry professionals in central London—initially favoured building upwards. However, by the end of the discussion, there was a 15% swing towards "out."

Ultimately, a combination of both approaches, and other solutions in between, will be necessary. London, with its patchwork of villages and towns, presents unique challenges that demand a multifaceted response. The evenings discussion demonstrated the severity of the housing challenge, this along with the broader historical and international context, emphasised the urgency for more radical thinking and government-led engagement to deliver the solutions we need.