‘I think Londoners will agree they are getting a good deal’, once remarked Ken Livingstone about the cost of the 2012 Olympics. This book examines the ‘impact of the Mayor of London's spatial planning powers on housing between 2000 and 2008’ (p. 1). It presents a case study of a new form of regional governance and the connection between spatial planning and housing strategy at a regional scale. In this context, the study portrays how spatial planning in a world city responds to the challenges of demographic change and economic growth. Along the way we learn of the outputs and outcomes of spatial planning and housing growth strategy highlighting the lessons that may resonate with (experience in) other world cities. Bowie provides a detailed analysis of the development of Livingstone's policies and their consequences.

The structure of the book is designed to consider how this new form of governance established by the Greater London Authority (GLA) in 2000 has functioned until the end of Livingstone's mayoralty. The book begins by contextualizing London's position as a world city at the beginning of the twenty-first century, reviewing the existing academic literature on theory and practice and exploring past studies of planning in London and other comparator cities. The first part of the book sets out a detailed background of London's new governance structure and the origins of the new spatial development strategy. It then proceeds to review the implementation of spatial policies within the London Plan with respect to achieving housing output objectives. The middle section examines the process of housing policy review, the relationship between government policy at national level and the specific requirements of London; then the focus shifts to the role, experience, impact of the mayor in using his planning powers for spatial planning in addressing population growth. The later chapters consider the impact and implications of the mayor's policies on housing and planning, and provide a review of the changing power relationships between the mayor, central government and the local planning authorities. The final chapter relates the practice of spatial planning in London in the period 2000–08 to the different theoretical notions of spatial planning outlined in the first chapter. It considers whether the overall outputs of the new structures and powers have been positive or negative on the evidence of the first two terms of the London mayoralty, and assesses whether other world cities can learn from London's experience.

One of Bowie's more contentious arguments centres on his application of Davoudi and Strange's conclusion, in their Conceptions of Space and Place in Strategic Planning (2009) – that most practising planners in the UK, whether at a regional or district level, still operate on ‘positivist’ principles despite the postmodern theoretical influence introduced in the new planning framework established by the 2004 Planning Act and European Spatial Development Perspective – to understand the recent trajectory of planning practice in London. Bowie argues that the ‘practice of spatial planning under the Mayor has some ‘elements of positivism’ whilst also containing an ‘element of rationalism’ (p. 220) due to government guidance and the statutory planning framework requiring plans to be based on evidence to satisfy the requirements of examination and public enquiry. Despite this, the author concludes the strategic planners at City Hall ‘never fell into the trap of systems theory’ (p. 220). Such a trap was perhaps antithetical to the desire for economic growth based on unregulated capitalism which constituted the intrinsic characteristics of governance; indeed ‘the neo-liberal paradigm was to reign supreme and condition every decision the Mayor took’ (p. 229). In this way, Bowie's account effectively augments the reader's understanding by directly associating detailed policy analysis within a broader, theoretically rich political economy framework. With regard to the consideration of whether the overall outputs of the new structures and powers have been positive or negative from the evidence in the period 2000–08, Bowie convincingly contends that ‘London's experience is that, without resources and direction, you do not get the quality of outputs you require’ (p. 244). In relation to the lessons for other world cities, it is acknowledged to be ‘presumptuous’ to assert that other world cities can learn from London, as governance arrangements in cities such as New York and Paris are different. However, the main lessons highlighted for other cities are that regional and local governments need to maintain control over both investment and service provision for success and give greater significance to transport and social infrastructure. This culminates in the statement that ‘the lesson for other cities is not to follow London's example’ (p. 245).

This volume makes two significant contributions. It is the first time that any researcher has conducted a thorough historiography of the development of London's governance after the Greater London Act of 1999. Secondly, it uniquely links the principles of land use planning with the author's empirical practical experience of contributing to spatial planning and housing policies in London. This means that Bowie's account lucidly enables the reader to develop an understanding of planning theory in an empirical setting which depicts how the underlying policy processes coalesce effectively, or sometimes ineffectively, within political exigencies. In sum, Bowie's book offers the reader an engaging critical analysis of governance and planning in London which should provide a solid platform for future studies.