Please see below a selection of articles re London’s vertical aspirations that seem to portray a different story to the one sold to us by the Mayor, the GLA, planners, government ministers and some local politicians in justification of the un-fettered mushrooming of super-tall, super-dense luxury residential towers all over London, in a nutshell: 1)London can only be a proper metropolis, if it has a skyline like that of Dubai or Shanghai, and 2) in today’s straightened circumstances social/affordable housing can only be achieved on the back of ballooning luxury developments built for foreign billionaire investors, and we have to be grateful for these few crumbs falling off the master’s table.
N.B. Personally I wonder how many luxury skyscrapers would have to be built in order to resolve London’s growing housing crisis – at 15 to 20 % social/affordable housing are the 230 currently planned/already built or being built tall towers going be anywhere near enough to provide adequate housing for London’s key workers, let alone everyone else? (Bearing in mind that ‘affordable’ still means 80% of the market price.)http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/mar/29/london-skyline-lack-of-consultation?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
Is there a danger that the bottom drop out of luxury housing?
And a bit of history …