Should London City Airport be closed?

[Asher Paul Ang]

In January 2016, Sian Berry, who was the Green Party’s candidate for mayor of London launched a campaign to close down London City Airport due to the claims that the airport contributed large amounts of both noise and air pollution to the environment and is detrimental to the neighboring boroughs in London. The plan basically revolved around the idea of closing down the accessible downtown city airport and replacing it with a development project which according to the Green Party sources would “create at least 16,000 jobs and add an additional £400 million to the UK economy” (Berry). The proposed development which would replace the Airport's prime piece of land in downtown London for businesses, residential areas, and other innovative ideas which could have a positive effect on the economy. 

In 2016, the London City Airport hit a record high by announcing a five percent annual growth with a record high of 4,526,059 passengers movements in 2016. The airport currently serves nearly 50 destinations around Europe and one destination in the US. Currently, there are plans to further develop the airport by adding an additional taxiway to maximize runway capacity and extending the terminal in order to accolade the increasing passenger load (Smith). London City Airport currently claims that it is the only airport that is “actually in London,” due to the fact that the Heathrow, Stansted, Luton, and Gatwick are all about 25-50 miles away from the downtown. Due to this fact, London City Airport makes itself easily accessible to the downtown business districts which makes it an airport of choice for business travelers. Furthermore, London Heathrow which currently serves as the UK’s international hub airport has been operating at “98% capacity for a decade” (Airports). Even though the proposed expansion plans have been approved by the government, the plan has been met with political opposition from the likes of the opposition Green Party who argue that the expansion would destroy existing neighborhoods in Longford, Harmondsworth, and Sipson (Bowler). Also, even if the everything goes according to plan, the planning would only be completed in 2020, and the additional runway and terminals would only be operational by 2026, and this still does not solve the current capacity issue with London airports. In addition, London Gatwick and London Stansted airports are also recording record growths in passenger capacity, and this means that if London is to lose London City Airport, there could potentially be a logistical issue for air travel in London. 

London has long been the international hub of the world and its airports connect destinations from Europe to Asia, America to Europe, Asia to America, and so on. This connectivity generates billions of pounds of tax for the government, and it contributes heavily to the UK economy. Loosing travel capacity in one of the busiest hubs in the world could possibly be detrimental to that hub. The issue is that airports like Heathrow and London City are surrounded by residential areas, and these airports are sources of noise and air pollution, and although regulations by the government have been put in place to curb flight times at night, the issue still remains with the imminent problem of passenger growth versus environmental concerns. Proponents of the plan to get rid of London City airport say that their plan would actually contribute more to the economy because it would not only create more jobs and possibly contribute more to the economy per acre than the current airport would, but it could also solve the current housing crisis in London and provide more employment opportunities which would benefit the working class. This proposal would also curb pollution and alleviate noise and air pollution which have plagued over 125,000 residents in Tower Hamlets and Newham which were considered one of the two worst boroughs of London for early deaths from air pollution-related diseases (Holdsworth). 

The argument presented by the Green Party sounds fine and dandy until it is actually evaluated for its practicality. It is a simple plan to get rid of an airport and create jobs and residential areas through developing on the existing land Although the proposal has some merit, it is not necessarily the most pragmatic solution to the current issue. It takes into consideration only a few facets of the problem and not the problem in its entirety. The problem with housing and pollution is legitimate, and there are other solutions that are currently being implemented to solve this problem. However, if this plan is carried out, London would suffer form loss of passenger capacity which could be detrimental to the local economy. Accessibility is key to a city’s success, and airports are the gateways to the world. London needs to not only maintain its existing airports but also expand it. Without this connectivity, the idea that jobs would automatically be created from this development would be a sheer fantasy. In fact, it seems that proponents of this plan are basing their argument on a prediction of the supposed future and proposing solutions to problems that fit their narrative. Developing additional housing on prime land does not guarantee a solution to the housing problems, since this land is “prime,” housing here would have increased value, and as such, it might not even solve the existing problem, because the people who would probably be moving into these residential areas would be upper class working business or corporate individuals. Developers who buy this land are not going to simply devalue their developments by building economy housing on a prime piece of land. On the premise of job creation, again, there are no guarantees that companies would necessarily move into this location. So far, only Allianz which is a German-based insurance company has supposedly shown interest in the plan, and even that is based on Green Party sources (Berry). The plan to get rid of an airport does not solve the identified problems, and in fact, it would create logistical and transportation problems for London. 

As seen from this argument, this puts into perspective the approach of the reform-minded progressive Green party. The Green Party uses a progressive mindset of helping the working class gain employment and housing, and also curbing pollution by getting rid of the airport and bringing nature to the city. Opponents of the plan subscribe to a more scientific mindset in wanting efficiency in developing a city and focussing on pragmatic solutions to fixing existing problems. 

Sources:

Airports Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved September 19, 2017, from http://www.heathrow.com/company/company-news-and-information/airpor...

Berry, S. (2016, January 18). Our plan to redevelop the London City Airport site. Retrieved September 19, 2017, from http://www.sianberry.london/news/pollution/our-plan-to-redevelop-th...

Bowler, T. (2016, October 25). Heathrow Airport expansion: Why is it taking so long? Retrieved September 19, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35011620

Holdsworth, R. (2016, January 18). Should City Airport Be Closed? Retrieved September 19, 2017, from https://londonist.com/2016/01/should-city-airport-be-closed

Smith, R. (2017, January 9). London City Airport announces record 4.5m passengers for 2016. Retrieved September 19, 2017, from http://www.cityam.com/256637/london-city-airport-announces-record-4...

Smith, S. (2017, January 4). London City Airport ad cleared over claim it's the only airport 'actually in London'. Retrieved September 19, 2017, from https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-city-airport-ad-clear...

[Sebastian Ortiz]

This is a great response and analytical "essay" about the importance of London City Airport. I totally agree with you that the closing of the airport will not solve the housing crisis that London has. The city is the financial capital of the world (for now [Brexit]) and can be affected be the logistics of transportation of human capital from the city and into the city. Airports are the hub of connection between countries and the host city. London has a very diverse population from all corners of the world. This means that London is a hub of cultural diversity and brings millions of people in tourism trip to business related travel. The expansion of the LCA should be a propriety for he UK's government since most of its airports are running to capacity. The housing problem in London needs to be solve by cutting off regulatory policies that impede the development of new buildings within the city and in the outskirts (creating some sort of sprawl-like situation). 

[Michelle Garcia Zarate]

Asher, thank you for your post. 

The Green Party has good arguments to protect its proposal of closing down the London City Airpot. They sound like a good plan that would solve many environmental and urban planning issues. However, it must be taken into the account that this airport facilitates the transport of hundreds and millions of people between the financial capital of the world and the rest of continents. Meaning that it contributes on a huge scale to the UK economy. If this airport is shut down, it will affect not only the British economy, but also the air travel in London (And all of the UK), and the transportation of passengers that arrive at the city due to business obligations. 

Eradicating a “problem” that is already developed and actually contributes to the economy, in order to solve different issues (like the housing planning) it is not the solution. If they want to start mega projects that would contribute to the economy, by all means, they should go for it; however, they could consider areas that still need to be developed even more.

[Nathan Lewis]

You make a good point that removing the airport and its accessibility could easily cause more economic damage than otherwise. Jobs do not just appear because there is new space. There needs to be means of transport, adequate demand, and convenient location. As you pointed out, the demand seems bent more toward air travel, especially in downtown London. Housing issues normally are not fixed by clearing out previously used and highly valued land. Housing policy has to create the proper atmosphere for construction via incentives or deregulation, not just more land. 

[Jacob Ryan Shaw]

I really like this. Super interesting argument. I totally agree that the externalities would be too great should this project continue. The airport truly does contribute to the economy in a grand scale. The demand for air travel is nearly enough of an argument on its own. The high price of the land would not lend itself to housing. While well intended the green party is definitely misguided in their solution. Great post Asher, it was very interesting to read.