Report comment

Vic Embankment will probably be shelved because of a lack of s106 funding. TCR, which was my project until I left Design for London, will go ahead because there is so much concentrated development in the area - six development sites, a crossrail station and underground station redevelopment. The main obstacles to delivering TCR are political but the project also carries high value so long as consensus between English Heritage, Mayors Office, Westminster and Camden can be achieved. In my opinion, the lack of funding for these projects isn't any Mayors fault, it’s a result of a blunt edged planning system that directs funding where there is money to be made, not where it can make a social difference. Ken Livingstone was working with the planning system to deliver public space projects where he could attract and stimulate developer interest in areas of social need. Given I met Ken on a near monthly basis to report on TCR, I formed the opinion that he was a very cunning player. I think Boris is obtuse by comparison. Re: Wil Alsops comments, I think there are probably more Wil Alsop critics out there than Design for London critics. The funding problem isn't going to change and so the decision to shelve the Mayors 100 Spaces is probably overdue. I think we need dual funding streams for development in the UK. In addition to the current s106 system, more use could be made of lottery funding for example to deliver public space projects where the social need is greatest. As far as s106 funding is concerned, I think developers should be compelled to provide rentable floor area as part of the s106 funding package. The rents can then be used to pay for maintenance of those spaces. Unfortuately in my experience developers are very reluctant to offer any longer term committment to public space beyond providing a capital sum.