I sympathise with those protesting against Labour's property development deals. Here's why

The protesters appear to be on to something. They raise issues that concern the whole of London

Haringey Council leader Claire Kober quit over a plan to demolish and rebuild two large council estates (PA)

A row about the provision of affordable housing has broken out in London. It erupted earlier this week when the Labour leader of Haringey Council, Claire Kober, quit over what she called “bullying” and “sexism” by supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. The point at issue was a plan to demolish and rebuild two large council estates in partnership with multinational property company Lendlease.

Opponents argued that there was insufficient provision for social housing and that existing social housing tenants would lose out. There were also concerns that residents had not been properly consulted, and that only 40 per cent of the new homes due to be built will be classed as affordable.

The protesters appear to be on to something. They raise issues that concern the whole of London. The first problem is the role of developers who, unless they are carefully controlled, often do a lot of harm to the texture of a city. Stand on, say, Westminster Bridge and look across to the dome of St Paul’s Cathedral in the distance, and you will observe that it struggles to be seen among the skyscrapers that surround it.

Developers also tend to pay no attention to the character of the city in which they are intervening. Compare the new office developments at Canary Wharf, built downriver from the City, and a similar project in Paris, La Défense, situated just west of the city limits. There is nothing London-like about Canary Wharf, nor does Le Défense have anything Parisian about it. They resemble each other – you could be anywhere in the world. As Deyan Sudjic comments in The Language of Cities: “A Canary Wharf in London is an example of a simplified slice of a city. It bears the same relationship to an authentic slice of city ... that a Starbucks does to a family-owned Italian café.”

The second problem in the Haringey case is that it would almost certainly result in a net loss of affordable housing. There are two points here. London’s vitality is partly generated from attracting the ambitious, the gifted and the young from around the world. And its rootedness (a quality that capital cities notoriously lack) comes from ordinary people doing ordinary jobs, living close to their work. Both these groups require affordable housing (officially defined as rents that do not exceed 80 per cent of the local market rent).

The Haringey plan, and the opposition it has sparked, is one of many examples across London. The Financial Times reports that local authorities in Camden, Vauxhall, Lambeth and Westminster are all facing growing opposition to their housing plans. One property industry figure told the newspaper that pressure was building against development in “every” Labour-controlled borough in the capital. Nor are developers prepared to hang around to fight the good fight. While they have a certain skill in public relations, successfully entering the local political arena is beyond their abilities. So they withdraw.

What makes a successful city? To use the term “world-class” in its literal sense, London scores highly with the City as an international business centre, its free art collections and museums, its theatres and concert halls and its inner residential suburbs. In Jane Jacobs’s book, The Economy of Cities, the American author argues that the most successful cities are those that have more than one kind of success and are continually able to reinvent themselves. London is doing that. You don’t have to walk far to find demolition and rebuilding.

In this sense London is very different from, say, Paris, as defined by the limits of the Périphérique. Within this ring road, Paris, largely built in the 19th century and earlier, remains beautiful but unchanging. There are scarcely any developments and scarcely any reinvention. It has only one skyscraper, la Tour Montparnasse, built in 1969 and heartily disliked ever since.

Despite a plethora or a total lack of developers in these cities, and the ensuing bad press and council spats, there is one crucial test the cities both pass: crowds. In London, you shouldn’t really complain about having to push your way onto a Tube train or having to weave your way along busy streets on your way to work or, afterwards, to the cinema or theatre. For crowds are an infallible sign of life.