The document reports on the London 2061 initiative at University College London (UCL).

It comprises four sessions:

o o o o The Sustainable City The Healthy City The Thriving City The Global City

The Sustainable City

Prof. Mark Tewdwr-Jones (Bartlett School of Planning) opened the Sustainability Session and introduced the purpose of the workshop. The London 2061 initiative aims at considering Londons Future from a very different perspective that we normally do, in light of the uncertainty related to critical issues, such as climate change, economic growth, housing or water supply. It provides the opportunity of capitalising on UCL existing expertise, and we expect to develop linkages between fields and disciplines that might not be self-evident.

Subsequently, the following presentations on Sustainability and would enable us to approach Londons Future from the Governance, Energy, Architecture and Water Perspectives.

The Governance Perspective: Prof. Yvonne Rydin (Bartlett School of Planning) was the first speaker. Her presentation offered a typology of different modes of governing, policy tools instruments of governance and faces of power. Governing could be characterised by three dominant modes: government, governance and governmentality. She exposed the variety of policy tools available for public policy (i.e: financial incentives, information and persuasion,

financial incentives, collaborative actions including spatial planning, regulation and associated negotiation) but insists on the need for balancing them in order to target London by considering the scale of the intended impact and the scale of the action, which refers to stakeholders engagement and public participation.

Subsequently, Yvonne Rydin accounts for the process of governing according to divergent public attitudes towards sustainability policy such as active resistance, inaction and apathy, in order to draw our attention on the need for distinct actions and policy tools with respect to different faces of power; namely overt, covert and latent power. Indeed, Rydins approach questions the appropriate scale of governance illustrated by the subtle distinction she made between governing for urban sustainability and urban governing for sustainability, because it implies distinct levels of action (i.g. the Metropolitan level vs the Government level). By reintroducing multiple scales for public policy and cross linkages, the governance perspective argues for an increased awareness of the relationships- and dynamics, between different modes and instruments when implementing public policies. Finding the appropriate level of governance for the sustainability remains a key question. The following discussion revealed even more interesting possibilities: Rydins contribution draws on Political Science and explicitly deals with power; however, it could complement researches conducted from an economic perspective on state formation and industrialisation in order to envision different scenarios for London. For instance, would a Metropolitan level of governance still be relevant for public policy if London Economic Growth came to slow down on a permanent basis? Instead, it could favour managing resources at the local level, perhaps this process could mark Londons elegant decline that would trigger a dialogue between London and its region which, at the moment, is underdeveloped.

The Energy Perspective: Bringing back the Climate Change Policy of Ken Livingston, Prof. Paul Ekins (UCL Energy Institute) began his talk by wondering whether an Energy Policy could be elicited

at the Metropolitan level. According to him, the scenarios elaborated at the national level predict changes that are likely to be more dramatic and radical than we believe. Londons Energy use now refers to transport (fuel, diesel and electricity), home and work (gaz and electricity), and infrastructure, such as logistics, water and waste system, power networks. Pressures for policies are defined in terms of climate policy, energy security and climate change. They involve the following challenges: reducing 80% of GHG carbon toward the low carbon transition, sustaining the reliability of infrastructure including the availability of fuels and facing climate change implications for flood defences, housing, transport systems, water/wastewater, management, airport

However, provisioning London energy raises complex policy challenges in terms of supply and demand. From the supply side, the capabilities might be wrong due to uncertain implications of climate change for infrastructure, flood defences and housing. In turn, changing capabilities might affect the affordability of the energy; for example how much decarbonising the electric system would cost? How it will affect prices? Accounting for the ambiguity of policies, such as the lack of common understanding on what the policy on carbon reduction exactly involves, even if we acknowledge that enormous investments are necessary, in fact, decisions rest on big bets. From the demand side, complexity raises from London specificity; London being supplied by the Global System, the energy consumed by Londoners is embodied into goods that comes from outside. Then, energy consumption is tight into common practices ( i.g: housing, heating, moving) and embedded in people lifestyle. Regarding the latter point, there are inefficiencies in the way energy is currently used in our domestic life; therefore Paul Ekins advocates that enhancing the performance of buildings and metering are possibilities. He insists on the need for thermal performance, building generation of heat and electricity, but also conserving behaviours because energy will be expensive. In his opinion, today, the metering system is far from being smart; it does not provide sufficient information on energy supply and demand and therefore limits the scope for policies aiming at a more efficient domestic use of energy. Also, insofar as solutions are deemed to rely on other domains of practices- architecture and the built environment, Paul draws on Rydin to stress that the effectiveness of energy policies might benefit from various

ways of governing. Finally, he concluded his presentation with a statement: even if changes will be greater than expected, the subsequent new practices, once adopted, would soon be accepted as normal. In response to Paul Ekins presentation, the audience brought to the fore the potential but crucial, social and cultural implications for London: what does it mean for Londoners lifestyle? Shall they be prepared to be cold over the next decades? How do mentalities apprehend such eventuality? Would some people be more affected and vulnerable than others? In this respect, the demography of the city is critical. Considering the elderly tends to spend more time at home and the average age of the population is heightening, what does energy problems involve for Londons communities? Concurrently, prices on the current housing market do not reflect such concerns, so does not affect buying decisions yet.

The Architecture Perspective: In his contribution, Prof. Ben Campkin (Bartlett School of Architecture) reflected on how different disciplines might anticipate the future. His questions deal with the relation between architects and architecture, the visions architects are projecting, and what it tells us about the future and the present of London. To this regard, he noticed a tendency to represent dissatisfaction with the present by picturing post-apocalyptic futures whereby architects are manifesting an enjoyment for ruins and disorders, using more sophisticated digital modes of representation, and promoting more interactive and responsive environments. This suggests the reconfiguration of the relationships between architects and nature, in a sense architects are led to reckon the contingent character of architecture, adopting a self-reflexive attitude regarding their role for the future.

To illustrate his statements, Ben Campkin exposed three envisioning projects for London: Flooded London 2090, London after the rain, and surprisingly, an advertisement campaign for the BMW cars which presents London without any space left for cars. As an example, the first one is emblematic; it represents a vision of Canary Wharf in 2090, reduced to a pre-modern state after being flooded, where two women are fishing from a

building which had turned into a ruin. By representing the collapse of finance and market-driven architecture, this image constitutes a severe critic of globalisation but integrates into a process of defamiliarizing familiar environment by foreseeing drastic changes for London, apprehending the present as already history. Quoting the work of David Gissen, Ben proposed an interesting definition of the future, as a method of thinking where the politics of the present are concretised into historical facts.

After the presentation, Mark Tewdwr-Jones observed a paradox between architects and those interested in post apocalyptic change. They are suggesting that something grand is going to happen while such a magnitude of change is not believed to be seen. Yet, what is the genuine nature of change? Incremental, patchy...? To what extent the perception of change influence the politicians and policies? Conversely, reasoning backward from future visions could lead to recall the present, perhaps, provoking opposition and resistance instead of change. From a more pragmatic view, questions concerned the design process, how it relates to the environment and stakeholders. To this regard, imaging techniques whereby the architect provides forums for engaging stakeholders become very important. Overall, referring to space and time, the discussion brought into the debate the possibility for buildings to device different social relationships configurations and political systems.

The Water Perspective: As a starting point, Prof. Julien Harou (Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering) wished to contrast his engineering perspective with previous presentations, observing that the delivery of water infrastructures might not allow space for creativity. According to the investment costs they represent, the society might rather be incentivised to conservatism than changing them. Regarding water, London implies two main preoccupations: flood and water scarcity.

Concerning flood, one sixth of the population is at risk of flooding from five different sources: the sea, the Thames, heavy rainfalls that could overcome the drainage system, sewers and groundwater. According to the UK climate projection of last year, at the

horizon of 2050, we can expect increasingly dry summers and wet winters. The average summer should be 2.7 degree, which also means drier; winter should also be warmer but 14% wetter. Toward the end of the century tidal surges should rise up to 70cm, the sea level up to 90cm. In this respect, the actual Thames barriers closures are expected to stop the surges entering Central London and provide more space for high freshwater flows after heavy rainfall. However, Julien Harou observed that most of them are used in an unsustainable manner at the moment, meaning that their use could be improved. Indeed, increasing the size of the barriers could greatly modify the configuration of the city. Still, there is now an insufficient understanding of the whole risks posed by climate change. Concurrently, water is becoming relatively scarce, which is an economic problem due to an increase in value. Londons water supply comes from the Thames basins and the ocean but regional and national responses have to be further explored. To this regard the regulation bodies wish to encourage the water sector to adjust capacities at a larger geographical scale than the London region.

The problem could be described as follow: in a sample year, the availability of the resource greatly varies over months, in contrast, the demand of water- the needs, remains stable, also the regions basins seem over-abstracted. In consequence, sustaining London needs requires management. In this respect, the actual system comprises two national agencies to regulate the sector and the licensing system with water businesses. In this framework, the traditional policy response is to develop the resource, such as providing additional infrastructure and rationing during draughts. However, these solutions imply ecological and economical limitations, giving relevance to new supplies, demand management and institutional adaptations. For this reason, under conditions of scarcity, water companies are encouraged to trade their licences among each other from basin to basin to fit the demand; although this initiative has not materialised yet and there is a room for improving both, the information conditions on the market and the administration of the licensing process. Building on Professor Martin Caves independent review on the conditions for competition and innovation in the water markets, Julien Harou proposed two institutional

alternatives for the water system. First, a legislation that could constitute an incentive framework for policy intervention which would account for the scarcity of the resource by raising the price of abstraction and by introducing reverse auctions, allowing the environmental agency to buy back the licences. Second, a more flexible framework based on negotiations and agreement with collective abstractors could present itself as an alternative. Recollecting Rydin, Harou pointed out that the regional level could be more relevant to manage the resource from an engineer-economist perspective; although he stressed that the changes to be faced are of environmental, human and institutional nature.

For reasons similar to energy management, in this last contribution, Julien Harou brought the advantages of having a metering system and subsequent political issues to the fore. Meters are expensive but it is difficult to charge users for their cost, so the implementation of the system is likely to rely on the goodwill of water companies or public subsidies; not the market alone. Furthermore, informed representatives from the Thames Water company noted that selecting water sources and basins is not an intuitive process, but instead depends on good optimising?, financial calculation, emphasising that water businesses rely on marginal costs and the incentives provided by the regulation framework. Acknowledging that market principles are underpinning the actual management of the system, to what extent such structure is appropriate to create the capabilities to face future changes?

Discussion for London Sustainability Tempering the general pessimism raised by the contributions, Mark Tewdwr Jones offered concluding remarks in favour of evidence based decisions and policies. The response to current and future challenges consists in seizing opportunities based on Sciences and Humanities. In this respect, visualisation would constitute a powerful tool for bringing people together, muddling through and brain storming. Going further, these challenges require assessing how vulnerable London actually is, paying a particular attention to the social implications since inequalities between groups exist already and might even rise higher.

Finally, three common problematiques emerged from the presentation: Accounting for the level and instrument of governance that would enable policies to target London in particular and engage a large span of stakeholders into the governing process. Developing tools such as visualisation that would help stakeholders to engage into the organising process related to resources management. Implementing measures such as metering that would reflect effectively the economics of the resources.

The Healthy City

The theme of this second session of London 2061 is the Healthy City. Dr Sarah Bell reminded us that the Grand Challenge for Sustainable cities depends on existing, but scattered knowledge, hence UCLs initiative to draw on its broad expertise to picture what a more sustainable and desirable city would mean in Global Plan. This session put a specific emphasis on the context and the risks it represents in terms of health, food provision, and security. In their respective disciplines all researcher applied methodologies aiming at better understanding the circumstances whereby risks arise. To this purpose, the contributions of this session dealt with three perspectives: Epidemiology, Urban Agriculture and Security.

The Epidemiology Perspective David Batty is an engineer in origin but moved in social science to specialize in Epidemiology; his presentation pictured London Health through statistical data on the conditions that are likely to put Londoners life at risk in the future. From a methodological perspective his work consists of identifying and characterizing what constitute the health risk factors over peoples life using different samples of the population in the UK across time. Yet, he argues that these factors should not be restricted to diseases but broaden to the present socio-economic and cultural conditions that will affect Londoners health tomorrow. Subsequently, David expanded on three

specific risk factors: obesity, mental health and poverty, that could orientate public policies.

Concerning obesity, the statistical evidence demonstrates that people became more overweight over the last 10 years, including the children, and this would constitute a terrain for more serious disease, such as cancer. For David, obesity associates a large range of bad outcomes which does not stand the genetic explanation, obesity consists of an environmentally created disease, due to, for example, the nature and quality of food available at low price. Then, he points at the conditions for individuals well being and mental health, such as stress and depression which are likely to be a great source of debilitation among the population and are likely to combine with other health problem; hence the implication for health services planning and the relevance for questioning what actually causes such disease. To reply to this question, David relied on his experience and work in Glasgow to put socio-economic variation among Londons population under scrutiny. Life expectancy in the UK increased, probably thanks to living conditions improvements and behavior changes, such as a lower rate of smoking. However this positive trend is hiding disparities among social groups that are better reflected in terms of social class analysis; namely by distinguishing groups of people according to their affluence in society. Yet, when it comes to London, such disparities are mirrored in space. Intriguingly, David showed the map of the Jubilee Line whereby most affluent people travel from Westminster to Canary Wharf, crossing the east side of the town, which comprises the poorest borough of London, Lewisham, where life expectancy is significantly lower. To this extent, the ways cities have developed historically matter to characterize the risk factors. In other words, actual health policies issues greatly equates to poverty concerns: how to generate a fairer society for a healthy life? In this respect, David Batty forwarded three recommendations: monitoring, improving conditions for daily life, and tackling the distribution of power, which is not only money but global resources. To further insist on this point, David explained there is a parallel to be drawn between parents life and education of children when they become adult to suggest that most favored children have

higher survival rate as, for example, they are less likely to smoke or being overweight. Still, there are two ways to improve health, targeting individual risk factors or changing the environment. Then, the review of 18 academic papers allows stating that changing the structure of housing through measures such as re-housing; refurbishing, improving energy efficiency improve the conditions for health, so what could be the impacts of events of the scale of the 2012 Olympic Game on the east part of London? Whether there is little evidence on the relation between large sport events and benefits of this nature, there is still a possibility for eliciting positive intervention in this domain. Again, this would depend on the ability to remove the risk factors; in this case, and focusing on cardiovascular disease, David considered that 57% drop in mortality could be expected in 15years.

Urban Agriculture Perspective: In this second presentation, Robert Biel introduced himself as an agriculturalist. The standpoint of his work relies on adopting a positive vision of the future of London, a rationale which distances itself from more alarming situation where energy depravation would create defensive conflicts. In contrast, Robert Biel built on system theories to argue that the communities of London hold the conditions for achieving positive scenarios; however he greatly emphasized that conducing London to a desirable future would require efforts beyond the sole issue of urban agriculture to manage societal and institutional change: the future of London will emerge from a process of struggle.

Subsequently, Robert Biel starts from a premise where the divide between society and agriculture has been removed. For him, urban agriculture relates to food access and security as the need to create a more self-sufficient city whereby production and consumption processes would be less separated, minimizing transportation. Also different part of London could be producing different product; for example staples in peri-urban area and more perishable food in central London, there are plenty of possible hierarchies for organizing the production in space. Indeed, London as a greater entity would also comprise further productive sub-units that would be self-efficient to a different degree:

from subsistence agriculture- a group or family who cultivate for its own use, to larger social networks and distribution.

Concurrently, Robert Biel sees London as a complex system whose resilience to climate change depend on its diversity which, in this context, means redundancy; namely an ability to find solutions from different points of a system. Indeed, the cultural interactions between communities fostered different farming systems; cultivation practices and cuisine across London, as for instance, the development of pre-colonial American inter cropping systems through Caribbean immigration. Also climate change might allow growing plants and vegetables in 2061 which are not possible to cultivate today. Still, Londons future system might be inconceivable and difficult to predict due to its emergent character. However, for Biel, existing practices of urban farming organizations would constitute resources for designing the provision of food system that would be appropriate to the future. In this respect, Biel forwarded four indicators in order to categorize these practices: the level of community management and collective participation in farming, their integration into distribution networks and their integration in urban physical metabolism. Biels idea is to maintain and further develop diversity through models which together would maximize these indicators. To this purpose, he presented allotment practices as having a high degree of community management the commons, but collective participation and integration are low as people have their own plot and production is not distributed. Another interesting case is the dat-cha model of farm, for the suburb, seen in Russia that could constitute an alternative way to use the green belt. In addition, experience from the developing world would also contribute to generate ideas. In this domain, there is important room for creativity, but actual initiatives lack holistic strategies at the policy level.

Security and Crime perspective for 2061 Gloria started her presentation with skepticism regarding extrapolation on crimes and security. Instead, she preferred to foresee the future of London between two extremes: the low crime and the Mad Max scenarios. Yet, the reality would stand in between. From an optimistic perspective, she outlined a future where crimes are controlled and managed,

the public is confident and collaborates with policing initiatives, and where the risks are well understood. Among the avenues to reach such situation, Gloria accounts for a better understanding and problem solving approach to crime, and the need for taking into consideration the environment in order to minimize risk factors (i.e: a political climate favoring appropriate responses to threats), and ultimately a social context that poses the normative issue: in which world do we want to live in? Then, she forwarded her definition of what crime is: opportunities.

Similar to the health perspective, crimes depend on opportunities which have to be linked to risk factors rising from conditions of poverty, unemployment and parenting, hence the question of how to control and remove such risks factors? Firstly, Gloria stated that subsequent measures are difficult to implement and takes from 15 to 20 years to be effective. Secondly, education is capital and would reflect on the fact we live in a civilized society. Thirdly, design matters as it creates new conditions and opportunities for crime; for example, the internet sets the context for frauds and crimes. Finally, Gloria brought partnerships as the appropriate framework to mitigate crimes.

In her view, partnership refers to the problem of collaborating since it reckons that security conditions depend on each other but nevertheless difficult to achieve. To illustrate this point, she mentioned how the car industry had contributed to reduce thievery by putting locks; the problem being to get actors who are not the potential victims to design the right thing in terms of security. She explained how the Government in the 90s incentivized car manufacturers to add locks by publishing a Thief Index Report by cars, or created new offense for kids using cars without consent. Another similar example, the design of beer glasses, and the need to demonstrate they were not only safer but also quicker to fill to be adopted. Again, she insists, this changes are not self evident and have to be forced by the public authority through incentives.

Regarding policies and politicians, Gloria advocates they should be more honest and understand the risks rather avoiding them or distributing blame. According to her, the risk of terrorist attacks cannot be avoided, and politicians should not suggest they could do it.

New risk-experts should be multi-disciplinary trained in security but also understand the conditions of risk, which is the social context. To this purpose, the Training Science of Security Centre has benefited of 7m grant. The actual threats are the economic crises, global terrorism, and to what extent politicians are likely to consider risks acceptable or not. Concerning the future of London she concluded on a positive note that emphasizes a learning process towards lessons and improvement. Discussion for Londons Health Conditions: The discussion focused on three points: the need to make people resilient to chocks: In favor of social equity, diversity constitutes a solution. However possible conflicts, setbacks and tensions likely to emerge in social context should not be undermined. People have divergent ways of doing things and living. the need to build partnerships for communities engagement : it is paramount to gauge and nurture the resources available within communities; moving away from individualist-oriented behavior in order to face climate change and its implications (i.e: scarcity of resources, flood). Still, there is an issue of social inequalities, for example, engaging in urban agriculture is leant against a symbolic power that is unequally distributed among the population and might hinder collective actions. Here, a parallel could be drawn with the previous session on Sustainability and the subsequent governance challenges, and the need to generate future visions, something positive to work towards global vision of change. The recognition of the divergent values and mindsets that drive attitudes towards health, risks and security. Public engagement is essential, but whether we have a culture that fosters civic interest is questionable: How to reinforce the political will to succeed? For example, there is a growing interest for gardening in London for 2-3 years but there is persistent stigma concerning the idea of growing ones own food. Also, all the population does not benefit from the same access to knowledge and the ability to care about health or food issues. Indeed, conditions of risks factor transmit themselves from generation to generation.

The Thriving City

Acknowledging future environmental and socio economical changes, this third workshop of the London 2061 initiative involves four presentations. The first presentation deals with strategic planning with a focus on planning competencies and housing while the second expands on the transportation system and constraints. The third presentation addresses issues related to historical heritage and the conditions for its conservation, and the last one explores the potential for media technology in understanding and designing the city through visualisation.

The Strategic Planning Perspective Duncan Bowie (London Metropolitan University) started with the planning context; namely the New Government and the abolishment of the regional level of planning, meaning that there is no intermediary between the national and local planning anymore. In terms of competencies, the Mayor concentrates the whole power for London Strategic planning since 2000 ( i.g: defining strategic schemes, writing and implementing policies, controlling and instructing local authorities to comply with the strategic plan) Indeed, the mayor represents the institution competent for London Housing Strategy and the subsequent budget. Looking at the Londons Key Diagram and the London Plans objectives, Duncan advocates that the future challenges relies on accounting for growth area and opportunity for densification. To this regard, he draws on the City Halls projection to expose the characteristics of the future housing demand. In 2031, the population would amount to 10.1 billion inhabitants which imply a need of about 1.6 million additional housing and 1.5 million to be replaced. In addition, it will comprise the needs of short term labour, international student needs, and Climates Change refugees. Other issues concern the accessibility and the liveability of places (i.e: organising and funding transport infrastructure accordingly), the legacy of the 2012 Olympic Games (i.g: how to meet regeneration requirements and use the resources they divert from other area), the actual lack of affordable housing and

control from the public sector over the market in so far as delivering the required infrastructures and services. Concurrently, Duncan criticises the current approach to Development, stressing that the market is neither appropriate for ensuring an equal access to resources nor to account for the environmental preoccupations of the future such as flooding risks.

Considering the current policy context, Duncan questions how realistic and feasible it is to promote a Model of Compact City for the future? Drawing on Peter Hall work, Duncan insisted on the importance of the regional scale of planning, more specifically the inter-regional one, to argues that planning practices have to deal with the metropolitan region and should not confine London to the Compact City Model because it ignores its actual development; that is urban sprawl and how people move in space, commute to serve their daily needs. Therefore, for Duncan Bowie, the densification of London is inappropriate. More lands have to be seized for construction. Corridors of development should be created such as turning the current Green Belt into, perhaps, Green Fingers form of development. Going even further, for him, the Mayor should not only back up the market with thorough financial and economic appraisal but also involve in land allocation and ownership when necessary.

The Transport Perspective Emphasising the importance of Londons suburban intensification, Peter Jones introduced London from the transport system perspective. As Duncan, he draws on population increase and the need for additional capacities. Subsequently, his contribution approached urban transportation in light of two main issues: how we try to accommodate Londons population and economic growth, and how tight we are on space to cope with existing movement? Regarding the first issues, Peter considers that one way to foresee 2061 is to look 50 years back and assess the potential for changes.

These last decades were characterised by a relatively stable pattern of population compared to 200 years ago and the provision of surface transport has stagnated to favour the redevelopment area of East London with rail projects like the Jubilee Line Extension

and the DLR. Also, Peter acknowledges that what will drive the demand on transport services in the future are not only population and economic growth but the development of suburban centres, tourism and where employment will concentrate; that is, to a certain extent, suburban mobility and orbital travels. Indeed, recent and ongoing rail investments (i.e: the CTRL, Crossrail, Thameslink) rather favour connection along the river rather than radial North South axis. Tramway projects like in France are also mentioned for the value they represent in enhancing public urbanism and space. Concurrently, the development of transport systems faces the tightness of Londons streets and the different pressures for their use such as the demand for open space, cycling and walking but also the political need to remain fair to car users. Still, the problem can be dealt through two options: managing the flow of movement, people and vehicles more efficiently and/or innovating in order to adapt transport modes to flows. As an example of innovation, Peter presented the PRT, which carries six people and is appropriate for places like airports terminals where traffic are steady and not too high. Furthermore, he insisted on the fact that freight activities (the flows of goods) are overlooked while they tend to increase greatly where employment concentrates and therefore are important in high density area. To this regard, he expanded on the possibility for upgrading the existing, but unused for 100 years, underground system of Royal Mail. However, the high capital cost of this initiative constitutes a barrier. Yet, adding substantial capacities to Londons transport system would combine a more formal allocation of street space to high capacity transport modes, the development of niche modes where appropriate, a greater use of tunnelling and the use of private funding. Regarding the latter point in particular, Peter mentioned an unpublished study which suggested that, considering the actual traffics, financing road tunnels on the basis of tolls revenues could be viable in London. Indeed, concessions-type of procurement whereby private contractors deliver public infrastructures in the perspective of recovering construction and operation costs with future revenues is now common. For instance, in Paris the toll of the A86 tunnel has allowed both, an increase of mobility and 15% reduction of surface traffic. Notwithstanding the benefits of such schemes, pricing

infrastructures use presents governance and acceptability issues. In London, a common assumption is that Londoners have a great value of time and therefore, they are willing to be charged for using the infrastructures.

In other words, through his presentation, Peter Jones demonstrates the need for long term planning in transport services, especially controlling travels localisation, foreseeing wider urban development change and creating capacities for public-private funding schemes.

The Heritage Perspective Alastair McCapras presentation questions the impacts of Climate Change and subsequent economic and social change on historical heritage and buildings and the implications for London as a world class city in this domain: What would be the impact for the Londons character and sense of place? What would be the impact on economic activities such as cultural tourism? The answer relates to physical risks, such as flooding, which might involve relocating the key collections but more importantly rethinking the nature of cultural resources: How London will value its heritage in the future and how it should manifest in policies?

Among the variables to be considered, the transformation of the tourism industry fed by the Growth of the Chinese economy, which means 45 millions of Chinese might go abroad and potentially visit London. Beside the opportunity of additional revenues it represents, how London will adapt to such diversification and expectations? What are the interests and priorities of these populations? Do they meet British and Londoners values? To this extent, the relationship between London and the rest of the world is crucial as it will determine what should be kept, the buildings that would disserve to be revived. For Alastair, the solutions lie on further engaging people in London, long term planning, recycling and repurposing the use of historical assets to develop London as liveable place while facing international forces. The challenge is to account for the places which have meaning for people and how they depend on specific locations. This would

involve a deliberative process at the societal level, a negotiation concerning the value of artefacts.

Again, from a management perspective, the market is likely to play a role- whether it regards the valuation process of Londons historical heritage or the cost of the initiatives likely to enhance it, but acknowledging its common limitation, what is the role of government? What is the role of local and more independent initiatives? Could Londons Governance be trusted to preserve it historical heritage?

The Visualisation Perspective. In his contribution, through visualisation and media technology, Alan Penn proposed a way of understanding places which better considers the relationships between the built environment and how people conceive and evolve in space. He argues for the emergent and socially constructed character of these relationships which coalesce to form a whole. In contrast, planning traditionally tend to fragment such whole by imposing a functional structure on space, separating pedestrians from traffic flows for example. For him, the complexity of the processes at work in London is currently misunderstood. Yet, visualisation methods and technologies would contribute to frame inspiring vision for the future. From this perspective, Alans presentation starts by expanding on the complexity of urban patterns and on how architecture and planning intervene, then, he used stories as a metaphor to deal with the meaning of the environment, and introduces original methods to visualise and deal with and complexity.

Alan views London as a flow of social relationships embodied into behaviours which rather depends on responses to the environment than thinking. To illustrate this view he uses images such as climbing where individuals exploit the environment for purpose, generating the adrenalin boost that leads to the appropriate behaviour. Similarly, urban design solutions should draw on urban fabrics and subsequent flows to gain confidence on what will happen in the future, that is engaging into an investigation of intelligibility. For him, architecture and planning are appropriate when they become meaningful, reflecting on the underlying social structure of places. However, he deplores that, to some

extent, design interventions tend to force people to act cognitively while situations where people are allowed to behave intuitively might work more effectively. In a sense, this statement questions common practices on the built environment and their subsequent culture; hence what would happen if building processes could become more adaptive and better respond to human behaviour? Still, transportation systems and subsequent facilities, such as underground stations already play such role; they permit communication, connecting people from one point of the city to another.

Yet, the technological devices of the future should better account for such potential by creating meaningful places and environment, so how does meaning work for those who occupy and design the space? First, meaning is structured in the same ways than stories. For Alan, films and narratives explain the ways we interpret the world in context, emphasising that we already have knowledge on what is going to happen. Subsequently, how people construct the world with their beliefs and expectations is crucial. Second, design is created collaboratively. To this regard, he presented a project he has conducted where designers create physically feasible and liveable environment in team, adopting leaders and followers attitudes naturally. Third, from a projection perspective, he demonstrates how collecting data via Bluetooth accounts for the actual social encounters and movements occurring across the city, allowing planning and designing from the bottom up, via emulation rather than traditional simulation.

Discussion on London Planning The contributions of this third session cast the actual complexity of planning and governing public services delivery for Londons futures needs, and introduce an increased awareness of the circumstances under which space is structured. Bringing regulation concerns to the fore, the presentations presented the difficulty to control processes and, as before in London 2061, raised critics on the markets capacity to provide tomorrows public services. Subsequently, the discussion addressed the nature of planning and the role of the experts.

If planning is subject to complex processes that might not be controlled, yet what is the primacy of central government, public policies, politicians and professionals over public services delivery? In other words, how to ensure that housing or transport services will be delivered to the appropriate standards, who should take responsibility for it? While market mechanisms fall short of the task, there is a need to place possible action on a continuum of relationships between the market and the government (i.e: hierarchical ways of governing through planning, laws and policies). Acknowledging that present conditions undermine the latter end, what are the possibilities to lean initiatives against existing knowledge, evidence and the potential of new technologies? In this respect, expertise is crucial but who should be considered as expert? Here, there are democratic concerns to be addressed: the problematique relies on engaging people as citizens and professionals with diverse expectations and probably conflicting urban experiences into a constructive process. To this respect, the appropriate stance could be outlined as follow: Adopting a reflexive perspective in order to understand environmental circumstances, global conditions and subsequent risks. Improving our theoretical grounds on complexity in order to help identifying pressure points for political intervention, public funding and regulation needed to meet the requirements of tomorrows services. Relying on people expectation, what they imagine for the future and how to get there. Similar to health issues, modelling the impacts of changes is recommended for public services delivery but there is also an opportunity for capturing real world data that would reflect the conditions for change rather than forecasting practices that project the future according to past trends.

The World City

This last session concludes the London 2061 debates by enlightening three aspects that characterise London as a Global City: the prominence of finance, the demography and the diversity of the population, and ultimately the culture. Adopting the World City

perspectives, the speakers built on todays evidence and fact to sketch out 2061 socioeconomic conditions and mindset.

The Finance Perspective The first presentation deals with the role of the financial sector in London, emphasising its prominence for the city and how crucial it is to pay a particular attention to this sector due to its contribution to the UK Economy. Briefly, Jurgen Essletzbichler draws on the following figure: financial services represent 12.1 % of the UKs tax revenues and procure 13.3 billion pounds from Londons other sectors. Yet, in a context of recession, the he posed the issue of finance in general and its impact on the built environment and the social fabric, the property market and the needs related to infrastructures: to what extent this sector is beneficial? How it makes London vulnerable to economic decline? Drawing on an evidence, the answer is not only related to the prominence of this sector in London (i.e: the revenues the sector generates in comparison to other sector) but to the inequalities it generates among the population. To this regard, the author brought to the fore the need to find the right indicators of social conditions, arguing that the extent of the problem does not solely depend on the level of incomes and its variance but also on qualitative attributes (i.e: security, wellbeing and health), in other words how and where the wealth that the financial sector generates concentrates and whether it stays in London. It manifests in the impact on the built environment- the sector generates urban gentrification and renewal, infrastructure upgrading and skyscrapers and in the price levels in London (i.g: the costs of resources such as housing, the availability of cheap financial means, affordability concerns for the whole groups of population living in London)

By referring to the Docklands, Jurgen considers that finance represents today what manufacturers involved for London some decades ago. Indeed, drawing on Hamnets thesis, the generation of a population with higher income does not necessarily mean that the poorest get poorer, but it affects the repartition of skilled labour and tax revenues, and the culture of the city In contrast, no financial sector in the future might mean a

restructuring driven by the disbandment of inequalities, which would materialise through outmigration, the evaporation of service provision, housing market crashes.

The Demography and Migration Perspective Recollecting the previous sessions on the future needs in housing and infrastructure services, Pablo Mateos started this second presentation with a striking fact: Greater Londons population grows negatively since 2001 due to a negative migration rate. However, according to the GLA such characteristic makes Londons planning difficult due to the uncertainty related to the future population number, yet actual scenarios announce between 8.7 and 9.1 million inhabitants for 2031. Actually, this is the structure of Londons population that should be put under scrutiny, namely gender, age, fertility and life expectancy, migration flows, survival rates, ethnicity. To this extent, Pablo argues that London actual population structure would mirror the future of London.

Life expectancy is higher than in the rest of the UK and Londoners tend to be younger. Still in the future, London will include an older population. Though, as demonstrated before concerning health issues, it varies in space. Along the Jubilee Line, between Westminster and Canning Town, life expectancy drops from 84.2 to 80.6 for female and from 77.1 to 71.6 for males; that is almost 1 year per stop. Similarly, the fertility rate reaches 2.87 children in Newham, the top neighbour, falls to 1.18 in Westminster, and varies from one ethnic group to another. In terms of migration, London loses population, excepted for the 22-29 years old population for whom, the net migration rate is positive. Concurrently, London is more diverse than the rest of the UK- 40.2% of the population is not White British, and the proportions of each ethnic minority are likely to increase over time. To reflect Londons diversity, Pablo draws on the common categories of census based on skin colours clustering, geographies and nationalities, which doubled between 1991 and 2001 and now amount to 16 different groups 16 groups. Also, considerations related to populations cultural attributes and differences are relevant in London, especially in a school and housing perspective: 40% of the pupils speak a first language that is not English and, for example, Turkish speaking population concentrates in the North of London. Indeed, according to the population pyramids, in the future the age

structure will not be the same for different ethnic groups, including a striking contrast between the British and African population. Whether the size of the households is expected to decline by 2031, it will vary from groups to groups. To conclude, the specificity of Londons population makes long term forecasting dependant on future public policies and their impacts. Still, recollecting the Strategic and Transport Planning Perspectives, a much higher density of population is to be expected, with growing pressure on jobs, housing, and transport but also on care facilities.

The Culture Perspective For Alan Latham, Culture could be seen as an organisation, questioning how Londons Ways are changing. To this regard, for him, Londons culture is transforming but getting more democratic as leaned against diversity. He outlined the positive conditions that Londons environment offers for businesses and success as the connectivity with the rest of the world. Regarding this latter point, he emphasises the global character of the city through international trade and exchanges, how goods and people move out and back to London to allow the city to develop diverse languages and customs and foster cultural innovation. Yet, London cultural specificity relies on the concept of World City, its dynamics, the prominence of finance, and Climate Change put a tremendous pressure on actual trends; casting uncertainties on the ways Londons work and the capacities to maintain its opportunities according to tacit values.

In addition, Culture represents the glue that hold people together, it relates to what London could and should be in 2061 as a city and would influence how it is going to happen. It allows people to connect to their heritage, densities, and their identity. Yet, in this domain it might lead to conflicts among the population, especially between the rich and the poor due to Londons inequalities. Also, there is potentials for brainstorming on what is going wrong at the moment and how to do things better in order to settle the kind of attitude and mindset needed for the future.

Drawing on Culture for London could involve a power change that might improve the future situation but, from a more pessimistic perspective, it also makes Science Fiction scenarios plausible. Discussion for Londons Global Conditions: Following the three presentations, the discussion expanded on London competitiveness. The idea of competitiveness disaster is to be linked to the prominence of the financial sector and crisis, although London is a politically diverse city. In this respect, there is a need to deconstruct the concept, analysing Londons competitiveness under from a normative stance to reflect on what should be done it terms of governance. Indeed, the mindset that argues that cities have to place themselves into a competition could be turned into more constructive initiatives such as the collaboration that would secure the appropriate skills, business environment and infrastructure for the future.