The right mayor or a nightmare?

That is the theory, anyway. What seems likely is that the eventual winner’s authority to use those powers will depend on what happens on election day. “It is not just who wins, it is by what majority. That is a critical factor,” says Robert Gordon Clark, broadcaster and managing director of London Communications Agency. “If Ken wins with over 50%, he will have a powerful mandate in negotiations with the government.”

And not just the government. Among those directly affected by the new order will be developers, construction professionals, and planners, many of whose activities will have to fall into line with the mayor’s strategic development strategy. And of course, there are the consortia that last week put their bids in to join the £7bn public-private partnership that is to run London’s Tube lines. They have already spent millions on a project that is vehemently opposed by Ken Livingstone, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens – and even Frank Dobson’s support is uncertain.

So, what does the construction industry and its clients have to fear or hope for from the mayor? The answer seems to depend on what you do for a living.

Planning and the mayor’s veto

The development community and the London borough councils are extremely wary of the mayor’s power of vetoing planning applications “of strategic importance”. Developers, in particular, fear more of those embarrassing last-minute planning hitches that put foreign firms off building in the capital.

The Corporation of London, the City’s planning authority, has already successfully lobbied to increase the height beyond which a scheme is designated “of strategic importance” from 30 m to 75 m. Stuart Fraser, chairman of the corporation’s planning and transport committee, takes a no-nonsense stance: “Whoever becomes mayor will probably leave us alone unless we propose to do something extraordinarily stupid. We hope the mayor for London will have better things to do than mess around with our planning process.”

The London boroughs, however, await with apprehension the publication of the mayor’s spatial development strategy scheduled for July 2001, with which their unitary development plans will have to tally. It has been suggested that developers will avoid confrontations with the mayor by tailoring schemes to come in under the “strategic importance” ceilings. This may mean, for example, that we will see housing schemes of 499 units instead of 500, and City office blocks of 74 m instead of 75 m.

But Clark says this may not get developers off the hook: “It will be hard to stop the mayor intervening, especially if whoever it is has a large mandate. You may say: ‘You’ve got no right to call this in because it is outside Nick Raynsford’s definition of strategic importance in the GLA act.’ But the mayor can reply: ‘Tough; it’s in my spatial development strategy.’ And they could invoke less quantifiable definitions of ‘strategic views’ and the ‘impact’ of developments.”

But architects and urban designers will be hoping that the mayor will transform London’s civic spaces and restore Londoners’ pride in their city, as Pasqual Maragall, socialist mayor of Barcelona, did for his city before the 1992 Olympics, or as Rudolph Giuliani has done in New York. “It is the most exciting time to be alive in London since the 19th century. It’s a terrific time for architects and engineers to contribute to reworking the fabric of our city,” says Alan Baxter, senior partner with structural engineer Alan Baxter Associates.

But while many of the mayoral candidates have expressed such aspirations, their first priority has to be tackling crime, sorting out the Tube and traffic congestion and reducing unemployment.

Mayor Livingstone, we presume

The most recent poll shows Livingstone leading with 61% of the vote, Dobson trailing badly on 16%, the Conservative candidate Steve Norris on 13% and Liberal Democrat Susan Kramer on 8%.

It is thought that many people will vote for Livingstone just to have fun watching Red Ken bait the pinky-blue Blairite control freaks at Westminster. However, Livingstone may have to take a more consensual approach to the mayoralty. He will have to work closely with the 25-strong assembly to govern smoothly, as without the assembly’s support, the mayor would be unable to set a budget. “A majority vote against the mayor’s budget would delay it, and a two-thirds majority would overturn it,” says Tony Travers, director of the Greater London Group at the London School of Economics. “It would create a log-jam.”

The fear of this aggravation will no doubt cause other voters to steer clear of Livingstone, although many are unmoved by the other candidates. One well-known London-based architect says: “None of them has any real weight. Nobody who had anything to lose would stand for mayor because nobody knows if they will be able to get things done or how they will be treated by government.”

Many feel that whoever becomes mayor will have their work cut out getting the show on the road, and will have limited opportunity to make their mark once they do. As Baxter says: “We may be expecting too much from the mayor and the Greater London Authority. Any major body takes time to work itself out. The real interest is how it works from year four on. The most important thing is to start the GLA off wisely, so as not to inhibit its long-term value for London.”