Density is inevitable
If we are to build new social and affordable where people need them, higher density is not a choice but a necessity.
This is already becoming apparent: in 2024 alone, planning applications were submitted for 64 towers over 20 storeys in London.
And the public remains cautious. Even in London, where flats make up the majority of homes, only one in five is currently in a high-rise building. If we’re going to deliver 1.5 million homes by 2029, that needs to change: we need to make density not only acceptable, but attractive - and that means getting the design, planning and policy right.
Why apartment living has fallen out of favour
Many of the criticisms of high-density housing are understandable.
After the pandemic, the desire for space, gardens and privacy grew. Hybrid working demands home offices and a better work-life balance. This makes apartment living - especially poorly designed flats in noisy blocks with no outdoor space - a tough sell.
Leasehold complications haven’t helped. Despite recent reform efforts, costs associated with ground rents, service charges and cladding remediation have undermined confidence. Meanwhile, commonhold - the government’s preferred future model for flats - remains largely theoretical, with fewer than 25 such developments in England and Wales and currently very little support or understanding among mortgage lenders and consumers.
Stricter regulation, specifically in relation to building safety, has cooled appetites. As a result, many social and affordable apartment schemes have stalled, with developers increasingly turning back to houses - particularly outside London and the South East.
Safety and planning delays
The Building Safety Act has added another layer of complexity. While well-intentioned, the introduction of the Building Safety Regulator has created a planning bottleneck.
There are further pressures on the horizon. The new Building Safety Levy (BSL) will impose an additional cost on residential developments over 18 metres. Meanwhile, rules requiring second staircases in high-rise buildings have already led to planning revisions and delays and are reducing the viability of many schemes.
This is a slow delivery that comes at a time when the housing need is acute. According to the ONS, just 153,900 new homes were built in 2024 - the lowest figure in years and far short of what’s required.
For affordable housing providers, they exacerbate already tight viability margins.
Designing density that works
There is a way through this - and it starts with design.
Not all density means tower blocks. Some of the most popular parts of London - Notting Hill or Pimlico, for example - are also among the densest, and yet they are largely low- to mid-rise. Elsewhere, new communities like Poundbury in Dorset (pictured) demonstrate how ‘gentle density’, inspired by traditional architecture, can deliver high densities with wide public support.
Breaking the monotony of so many 20th-century housing estates, where buildings and styles are repeated without taking into consideration the environment's identity, these new communities comprise walkable, mixed-use neighbourhoods with a variety of housing options, densities, and public spaces, countering the negative impacts of urban sprawl and creating a sense of identity and community for a sustainable future.
The idea is gaining political traction. Both Labour and the Conservatives have promoted traditional architecture as a way to reduce opposition and deliver more homes. Georgian-style schemes can reach 40-60 homes per hectare - significantly more than the typical 30-35 homes per hectare on greenfield sites - while commanding a value premium.
This has real relevance for both the social and private sectors. For affordable housing providers, it offers a way to deliver higher unit counts without sacrificing community or quality.
Suburban v urban density
But context matters. What qualifies as dense in the suburbs may look positively low-rise in city centres. While a four-storey block may be appropriate for suburban infill, central sites - where land values are higher and demand is acute - require greater scale.
Even then, we can be more creative. Airspace development - adding floors to existing buildings - offers a largely untapped route to new homes in constrained urban areas. Similarly, reconfiguring underused commercial or civic sites for mixed-use, mid-rise development can unlock capacity without relying on controversial towers.
For affordable housing, partnering with NHS trusts or local authorities to build homes above health centres or libraries can yield mutual benefit.
Changing hearts and minds
We need to change how people feel about density. That means not only better buildings, but also better streets, services and communities.
If density is associated with poor quality, anonymous towers, then people will resist it. But if it delivers attractive, sustainable, well-located homes that respond to how people actually want to live - whether renting or buying - then it becomes part of the solution, not the problem.
Ultimately, we won’t hit the 1.5 million homes target through sprawl alone. Nor should we try. Expanding into the Green Belt risks long-term environmental and economic costs. The answer lies in doing density better - and doing it in the places where people already want to live.
Done well, dense development can offer opportunity, affordability and quality of life. We just need the confidence to build it.
