Why Nick Millican Doesn’t Think More Towers Equal More Housing
Across London and other global cities, the housing shortage has sparked a familiar refrain: build taller. Towers rising above skylines are often portrayed as a direct route to density, the clearest symbol of progress against constrained supply. Yet Nick Millican, CEO of Greycoat Real Estate, believes this view oversimplifies the problem. With decades of experience in asset management and commercial development, he argues that more towers do not automatically mean more housing. The question, he insists, is not how high cities build, but how intelligently they plan.
The Mirage of Height
Millican is quick to note that towers have a certain political and visual appeal. A skyline dotted with cranes provides an image of activity, and new towers create the impression of scale. But the economics behind them often tell a different story. Tall buildings are some of the most complex projects in real estate. They require specialized materials, significant engineering, and years of planning approval. The result is that towers are expensive to build and slow to deliver.
That combination, Millican explains, makes them less effective as tools for addressing shortages quickly. In some cases, towers can even reduce affordability if the costs of construction and long-term maintenance are passed on to residents. The image of housing supply increases, but the practical benefits are less substantial.
The Economics of Delivery
For Millican, the housing conversation must move beyond height to focus on efficiency. Towers often carry higher ongoing costs—everything from lift systems and energy management to façade upkeep. These costs make them less suitable as large-scale answers to affordability.
By contrast, medium-rise developments frequently achieve greater balance. They can deliver significant density without the engineering complexity of skyscrapers. They are faster to build, less costly to maintain, and easier to integrate into existing neighborhoods. Millican emphasizes that if the goal is to deliver homes at scale, cities need solutions that optimize cost, speed, and community integration rather than just chasing height.
The Human Dimension
Beyond economics, Nick Millican stresses that housing is fundamentally about people. Towers, if poorly designed, can foster isolation rather than community. Vertical living requires intentional design to avoid creating enclaves disconnected from the streetscape. Without integration into the rhythm of the city—access to transport, shops, schools, and green spaces—residents may find themselves housed but not truly connected.
In Millican’s view, the true test of housing solutions is whether they support daily life. He argues that developments must prioritize livability over spectacle. Homes that are accessible, walkable, and tied into community infrastructure have greater long-term value than towers that look impressive but lack integration.
Smarter Density
Millican describes the goal not as higher density, but as smarter density. This means creating environments that balance scale with sustainability, cost with accessibility, and design with community. For him, the best developments are those that anticipate how people will live decades from now, not just how they will look when completed.
This philosophy reflects his broader leadership at Greycoat Real Estate. The firm has built its reputation on delivering superior risk-adjusted returns by focusing on projects with long-term resilience. In Millican’s mind, that resilience comes not from chasing headlines with tall towers but from developing properties that endure in both value and relevance.
The Limits of Symbolism
Millican does not dismiss towers entirely. In this piece on Financial News, he acknowledges their place in the housing mix of global cities where land is scarce and demand is immense. But he warns against treating them as silver bullets. Too often, the push for towers is driven by symbolism—the visible proof that something is being done. Yet symbols do not solve shortages on their own.
He advocates for a broader toolkit: regeneration of underused sites, encouragement of mid-rise development, and better alignment between infrastructure and housing growth. By diversifying approaches, cities can deliver homes that are not only numerous but also suited to the way people live.
Planning for the Long Term
Underlying Millican’s argument is a simple but powerful principle: housing solutions must be sustainable over time. Towers may deliver volume, but if they are costly to maintain, socially isolating, or slow to complete, they fall short of their promise. By focusing instead on practical, human-centered strategies, cities can create housing that meets immediate demand while laying foundations for long-term stability.
For Millican, the challenge is not just producing more units but producing the right ones. Buildings should be designed to last, support communities, and remain accessible. That requires patience, discipline, and the willingness to look beyond the allure of height.
A Call for Realism
Nick Millican’s critique of towers is ultimately a call for realism. Housing crises will not be solved by slogans or symbols. They demand careful planning, economic pragmatism, and a focus on the lived experience of residents. More towers do not equal more housing unless they are part of a broader, smarter system of development.
As London and other cities wrestle with shortages, Millican’s perspective provides a reminder that building upward is only one option—and not always the best one. True progress lies in designing homes and communities that endure, not just structures that scrape the sky.
Check out this recent feature on Nick Millican: