Festus Akinbusoye: What is a city for? Why London must be a home, not just an economy

Festus Akinbusoye is former Police and Crime Commissioner, and local election candidate for Abbey Road Ward on Westminster Council.

We are talking about our cities in the wrong way — and it is beginning to show.

In policy papers, committee rooms and television studios, London is usually described as an engine of economic growth, a hub of innovation or a centre of global finance. All of this is true. But it is not the whole truth; and when we mistake the part for the whole, we end up shaping a city that serves the Treasury’s balance sheet, but not the lives of the people who call it home.

Long before we fix our housing crisis, restore public safety or build a transport system fit for modern life, we need to step back and ask a more fundamental question: what is a city actually for?

Aristotle once argued that the purpose of the ‘polis’, the ancient Greek city-state which served as the centre of political, social, and civic activity, was not merely to enable life; but to enable the good life.

Too often, policymakers treat London as something to be managed rather than somewhere to be lived in. We optimise for output, movement, and efficiency, but neglect belonging, stability, and the simple human need for somewhere to call home.

A successful city cannot just be a hub of economic activity. It is where people begin their lives, form relationships, raise families and try to build something lasting. It is, first and foremost, home.

That may sound obvious. But our policies increasingly suggest otherwise.

At 23, I found myself leaving London not because I wanted to, but because I had to. I had grown up in the East End. My family was there. My friends were there. I had even started a business there with help from the Prince’s Trust. Yet I could not afford to live anywhere near the community that had shaped me. Like so many others, I was pushed out.

I will never forget my first week away, sleeping on the floor of a YMCA in Milton Keynes, more than 70 miles from my family home in Canning Town.

That experience, sadly, is no longer unusual. If anything, it has become more common and more severe. For many, London is now a place to pass through rather than somewhere to put down roots.

And when a city becomes transient, something deeper is lost. It is not just about the cost of rent. It is about the quiet erosion of community. The neighbour who knows your name. The familiar face at the corner shop. The sense that you belong somewhere and are known there. These things rarely feature in policy debates, yet they are what make a place feel settled, human, and worth investing in.

This is not simply a housing problem. It is a failure to be clear about what a city is.

A city must work, first and foremost, as a home.

This becomes even clearer when we consider public safety. It has become an accepted refrain in some quarters that if you want a quieter, safer life, you should simply move out of the city. To me, that is not a serious answer. It is a failure of ambition.

There is no reason why raising a family in London should be seen as inherently less safe than doing so in a rural village. Safety should not be a luxury. It is a basic condition for strong communities, a functioning economy and a place that feels like home. If we accept lower standards of safety in our cities, we are not simply tolerating crime. We are redefining what urban life is allowed to be – and that is a policy choice.

The same applies to the design of our neighbourhoods. Access to much more green space, the availability of well-planned and genuinely affordable family homes, and the sense that even a large metropolis can have continuity, character, and care — these are not secondary concerns to be balanced against growth. They are the very things that determine whether people stay.

We are at risk of creating a city that people pass through, but do not truly feel part of or rooted in – with serious implications such as schools closing due to plummeting pupil numbers to streets of strangers as standard because of a high transient population.

So, if we are serious about the future of the capital, we need to return to first principles. A city exists to provide the conditions in which ordinary people can live well. That means being able to afford a home, feeling safe on your street, and raising children in an environment that supports family life.

Until we are clear about this and articulate it more confidently, we will continue to produce policies that treat cities as systems, not as places. The question is not whether London should be a global city. It already is, and a great one too.

The question is whether it can also remain something more grounded: a place where people can build a life and stay.

In my next article, I will explore what happens when we lose sight of this purpose — and how it has shaped the housing, crime, and transport challenges we now face.