The Not-So-Crazy Idea of Making Cambridge Britain's Second City

🚀🚀🚀

This essay serves as an intellectual contribution to my role in re-launching Cambridge YIMBY. Our launch event is on February 26th—sign up, or follow for updates!

---

Part I: The Case for Cambridge

1. Britain’s Second City

2. The Midlands Enlightenment: How Birmingham Made Britain Great

3. Why Cambridge?

4. Lab Space: A Tale of Two Cities

5. The Housing Crisis

6. Cambridge 2040

Part II: Delivering Change

1. Challenges Ahead

2. Labour’s First Steps: A Start, Not a Solution

3. Cambridge YIMBY: A Coalition for Change

   ---

Britain’s Second City

Whilst London has reigned indisputably supreme as Britain’s first-city for at least a millennia, the title of second-city was historically in-flux. York was an early contender, the northern capital of Roman Britannia, and to this day the ecclesiastical centre for half of England. In medieval England, Norwich held this status, a prosperous and intellectual hub, not surpassed until the growth of Bristol as a merchant and colonial port in the 17th century. By the 19th century, Dublin, then the capital of Ireland, was often called the "second city of the British Empire".

Yet it was not until the Industrial Revolution that true metropolises we know today emerged: Glasgow, Birmingham and Manchester. Despite how remarkably Britain’s economy has changed since 1945, the mantle of second-city has barely changed, thanks to the restrictive planning and green-belts of post-war Britain. To this day the internet incessantly argues about which of these three truly is our second city. Today I make the case for a new challenger, Cambridge: the second city of the Information Revolution.

At first suggestion this all sounds quite ludicrous. Yes Cambridge is prosperous, and famous for the best university in the Old World, but it is frankly tiny! The city proper has just 150,000 residents, which doubles to 300,000 across the ‘Greater Cambridge’ region. Contrast this with metropolitan areas of the West Midlands and Greater Manchester, each home to 3 million people. Yet dismissing Cambridge misunderstands history— at times of economic transition, greatness often emerges from unique combinations of resources, people, and institutions.

The Midland’s Enlightenment: How Birmingham Made Britain Great

The Industrial Revolution transformed Birmingham from a small town, not even the largest in its county, into a global powerhouse that catalysed Britain’s rise as the first industrial economy. Its humble beginnings demonstrate that size alone does not determine future greatness. Instead, a unique confluence of factors—resources, expertise, and institutions—fuelled unprecedented growth..

In fact, almost all the defining innovations of the Industrial Revolution almost all can be traced back to the West Midlands:

• The Watt steam engine, the step-change in the history of power generation

• The cotton mill, catalysing textile manufacturing—the first true industrial commodity

• The modern factory system, with assembly-line mass production at the Soho Manufactory

• The coke blast furnace, revolutionising cast iron production and enabling the work of great Victorian civil engineers

• The modern chemical industry, with innovations in large-scale production of sulphuric acid, alkalis, and the creation of the first synthetic plastic

Whilst Birmingham had foundational advantages¹, agglomeration effects were vital to magnify its productivity and innovation. The close proximity of businesses, talent, and resources fostered networks that spurred economic progress. Innovations in transport, such as canals and railways, interconnected Birmingham with neighbouring towns, further enhancing these effects. By the early 18th century, Birmingham’s population had grown rapidly—quadrupling from 15,000 in 1700 to 60,000 by 1750. By 1851, it had become a true industrial metropolis with a population exceeding 250,000, and by 1931, it housed over a million residents.

This agglomeration led to a sudden emergence at the forefront of global developments in science, technology, medicine, philosophy and natural history, becoming known as the Midlands Enlightenment. Between 1760 and 1850, the core years of the Industrial Revolution the city fostered exceptional levels of invention, with Birmingham residents registering over three times as many patents as those of any other British town or city. The legacy of this successes continued as late as 1961, when West Midlands households earned more on average than any other British region, including London and the South East. It’s unravelling, maligned by the post-war dirigiste state, is well documented in The Plot Against Mercia.

Why Cambridge?

Today, the UK’s economic prowess rests on a competitive edge in several key industries: finance; legal and professional services; aerospace and defence; but perhaps most importantly for the future, rapidly advancing sectors such as life sciences, software, and artificial intelligence (AI). While there are convincing arguments that Britain should think like a developing economy—needing to fix its foundations and engage in catch-up growth—if the country wishes to regain its position as a global leader, it must also secure its competitive edge in the industries of tomorrow.

Like Birmingham at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, as we enter the Information Revolution, it is Cambridge that holds the essential foundations for growth. The city boasts a world-leading university, consistently ranked among the top five globally for research output, and from 2013-7 was the most successful globally for producing spin-outs, measured by total capital raised. Cambridge also hosts Europe’s largest medical research centre and serves as the global headquarters for bio-pharmaceutical leader AstraZeneca and semiconductor pioneer Arm—Britain’s first $100 billion tech company. These homegrown giants, alongside countless other technology and life-science firms, including R&D labs for Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft, form the dynamic "Silicon Fen”. This dynamism is further enhanced by Cambridge’s thriving start-up ecosystem, which benefits from robust access to capital. Between 2015 and 2020, Cambridge attracted nearly $1 billion in venture capital funding, more than Dublin, Berlin, and Barcelona combined.

Cambridge’s proximity to London, combined with its global talent pool, elite research institutions, and vibrant start-up culture, makes it a prime candidate for spearheading Britain’s Information Revolution—just as Birmingham once led the Industrial Revolution. The previous governemnt’s “Case for Cambridge” found that building 150,000 new homes by 2050 has the potential to add approximately £6.4 billion to the economy. Evidence on agglomeration suggests a 4.4% cent uplift on productivity as a city doubles in size, but in more knowledge intensive businesses it is much higher at 8.3%.

“Under the liberal system of the nineteenth century, late twentieth century Cambridge’s huge success in life sciences would have led to both taller buildings and many new suburbs, connected by new train lines, trams, tubes, and roads. It would likely have a population of at least a million today, just as Glasgow grew from a population of 70,000 in 1800 to over 700,000 in 1900 to facilitate its world-leading shipbuilding industry.”

Foundations: Why Britain has stagnated. Ben Southwood, Samuel Hughes, Sam Bowman

Unfortunately, unlike in the 18th century, Cambridge’s growth into a global leader is being unnecessarily restrained, to grave effect to Britain’s economy, and global well-being. Our discretionary planning system has enabled NIMBY opponents to place barriers and blocks at every stage of development, preventing the virtuous cycle of agglomeration and innovation from truly taking hold. In an era when Britain’s future depends on fostering world-class centres of growth, Cambridge’s potential is being squandered by a system that prioritise veto-points over progress.

It is hard to imagine a world that had taken the same attitude in the 17th century, restricting Birmingham from pioneering the single most important shift in human history: the escape from the Malthusian trap into an era of sustained economic growth. No-one decried Birmingham’s growth as impossible, or suggested instead to focus on the “left-behind” cities of Ipswich, Great Yarmouth, Canterbury, Worcester, Shrewsbury, and Salisbury, amongst the largest in 17th century England.

Lab Space: A Tale of Two Cities

In the race for innovation and growth, access to the right infrastructure is crucial. For Cambridge, home to world-leading research, technology companies, and a thriving ecosystem of start-ups and spin-outs, the shortage of lab and office space is becoming a growing concern. Without adequate facilities, the very foundation of its economic success—dynamic, high-growth industries—could be at risk.

Under Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the “carrying out of any development” requires permission from a local planning authority. In making the decision whether to permit or deny permission to develop land, the authority may consider any “material consideration” providing them with wide discretionary powers to constrain all proposed building. Given those who sit on the local planning authority often are elected Councillors, this creates a powerful incentive for officials to appeal to local lobbying efforts and deny development for spurious reasons not obviously in the public interest. Accordingly, the system is extremely gameable, and public resistance to projects almost certainly guarantees their rejection.

British Science Needs Space to Grow. Tom Spencer

Property consultant Bidwells reported in 2023 that Cambridge faced an 850,000 sq. ft shortfall in lab space, with vacancy rates plummeting to just 0.57%. As a result, it has become increasingly difficult for firms to start up, expand, and access the necessary facilities. This scarcity has driven up costs—rents for fitted laboratory space exceeded £70 per sq. ft in 2023, a 22% rise from the previous year, making Cambridge the second most expensive location in the UK, behind only London. Money that could be invested in research and development is instead being redirected to rent, stalling progress and reducing profitability.

Across the Atlantic, Boston is in many ways a mirror of Cambridge: not only is it home to Cambridge's eponymous twin, but it also boasts two world-leading research universities and a thriving technology and life-science sector. However, unlike the UK, the US appears to better recognise the need for sustained growth to to meet demand. In 2023 alone, Boston added 6.7 million sq. ft of new lab space to keep pace with the post-pandemic boom — that’s almost 2/3rds of Cambridge’s total space in a single-year. Highly innovative firms are inherently mobile, and if it becomes more beneficial for them to relocate to America, they will.

Until Cambridge is allowed to grow, Britain is sending a clear message to its most exciting companies: they are better off elsewhere.

The Housing Crisis

This issue is further exacerbated by the housing shortage, which stifles the agglomeration effects that are particularly powerful in knowledge-based economies. For instance, Boston benefits from a metropolitan area with a talent pool of 5 million people. In contrast, Cambridge’s potential is severely hindered by its uniquely severe housing crisis, rivalling London’s despite being a much smaller city. The crisis—marked by skyrocketing property prices, unaffordable rents—demands urgent attention.

The average house price in Cambridge reached a staggering £490,000 in 2024, a 525% increase since 1995. The last 10 years saw house prices in Cambridge increase by 78% and pay by only 23%. In-fact by 2018, house prices had already risen to 13.5 times the average local earnings, surpassing London’s figure of 12.3 at the time.

For renters, the situation is equally grim: the average rent for a one-bedroom flat exceeds £1000 per calendar month, following a meteoric 38% rise in city-wide rents between 2019 and 2023. These soaring prices reflect a dire scarcity of housing supply, with market signals clearly calling for expansion—an expansion that, in practice, is effectively forbidden.

This drastic decline in housing affordability has painful and far-reaching consequences. The most visible sign of this crisis is homelessness, which underscores the city’s unenviable status as the most unequal in the UK. Beyond homelessness, exorbitant rents put immense pressure on low-income households and working families; displace long-standing local communities; and lock out new talent from the opportunities that Cambridge offers. Unattainable house prices prevent young professionals from settling in the city, undermining both social mobility and the city’s long-term economic vibrancy.

The wider effects of this housing shortage are profound and multifaceted. As eloquently outlined in the ‘Housing Theory of Everything’, insufficient housing leads to stagnating productivity, strangled innovation, declining fertility rates, rising obesity, deepening inequality, and an increased carbon footprint. These issues are only compounded by Cambridge’s unique position as a centre for innovation and entrepreneurship, making the need for urgent action all the more critical.

Cambridge 2040

The Britain in 2025 has been shaped by a lost decade following the Global Financial Crisis, marked by stagnating productivity and living standards. Policymakers, aware that Britain’s discretionary planning system has stifled the economy, are finally waking up to Cambridge as a critical policy priority to kickstart growth.

An argument similar to my own above was behind the announcement in July 2023 by Former Housing Secretary Michael Gove for Cambridge’s growth. The “Case for Cambridge,” published in March 2024, laid out the details of these plans. Gove proposed 150,000 (originally 250,000) new homes, justified largely by Cambridge’s unique potential for economic growth through the expansion of its intensive research and innovation cluster. Occupied at the UK’s average household size of 2.4 people per home, this would represent a 120% increase in the population of the Greater Cambridge region—from approximately 300,000 to 660,000. This ambitious plan would be accompanied by large swathes of new lab and office space; investments in public services and infrastructure funded by land-value uplift²; and a new tram system to connect the expanded city with nearby towns. Gove's mission was simple, “to supercharge this scientific and economic supercluster” and, in turn, reignite a belief in Britain's future.

Critics have argued that such rapid growth is infeasible, irresponsible, and would forever damage Cambridge’s historic character. The growth of Britain’s cities during the Industrial revolution—Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, or Glasgow—shows this is anything but the case. Not only was this growth possible, but it was instrumental to Britain’s first economic miracle. Why should we expect any different of the Information Revolution? For those who deem these examples too ancient, we need only look across the Atlantic to Texas. Greater Austin, buoyed by booming technology and life science sectors, tripled in population over the last 30 years. Any concerns about Cambridge's "character" would do well to note that despite this rapid growth, Austin has consistently ranked as one of the most desirable places to live in the United States. Cambridge itself offers a historical precedent for such transformation. Over the last century, the city’s population nearly tripled without losing its charm or brilliance. There is no reason why Cambridge cannot achieve this again, evolving into a global hub for science and innovation while maintaining its unique character.

Delivering Change (Part II)

Cambridge stands at a crossroads. Its potential to lead Britain into the Information Revolution is unparalleled, but achieving this will require overcoming significant barriers—chief among them, a planning system that strangles its growth. Without the necessary infrastructure, lab space, and housing, the city’s innovation ecosystem is at risk. As we look to the future, it is clear that the case for Cambridge is no longer a speculative argument but a vital necessity.

My own experience with Cambridge NIMBYs³ has shown me how well-organised, well-funded, and politically connected these opposition movements are. Meanwhile, national government has shown hesitance at a time when Britain needs boldness. Cambridge desperately needs an equally organised and committed pro-housing voice—not just to advocate locally but to push for national action that ensures long-term success. YIMBYs must continue to make the case intellectually and practically, for a radical plan for growth.

This is only the beginning. Part II will explore the concrete steps needed to turn this ambitious future into reality.

1. Birmingham’s early advantages lay in its burgeoning domestic metalworking industry, bolstered by demand during the English Civil War; its proximity to the coalfields of the Black Country; and its culture of entrepreneurship. Unlike cities dominated by landed interests or medieval guilds, Birmingham flourished under self-made merchants and manufacturers who established early banking and financial systems, enabling investment in manufacturing. The Midlands Enlightenment and the Lunar Society further fostered intellectual and industrial collaboration, with technological advancements driven by the close relationship between theoretical science and practical manufacturing.

2. Giving landowners permission to turn agricultural land into homes can result in its price increasing by over 100 times. Capturing a fraction of this value could help ensure the delivery of public services, infrastructure, and social housing.

3. A prime example occurred during the multi-year struggle to allow my college, Queens’, to build much-needed postgraduate accommodation in a wealthy part of Cambridge. The local residents group, buoyed by the Green Party, launched a fierce opposition to what were incredibly modest proposals to expand existing accommodation on the site. Their leading attack was “harm” from potential light pollution to a small population of bats (to my knowledge, their existence is unproven to this day), in a nearby property. That the accommodation (remember, for students at the world’s second best university), was designed to watertight environmental standards, and within a 5-minute cycle of the city-centre, seemed not to matter to these “environmentalists”.

The Council rejected the proposal, despite a protracted planning review process which gained the full support of the City Council Planning Officers. This was no doubt swayed by the almost hundred objectors in attendance (midweek, during working hours). Queens’ appealed the decision to the Planning Inspectorate, and were rightly given approval, though not without continued delay and costs. Indeed the opposition group, raised a further £20,000 to block the appeal, including a £3,000 donation from a single donor. I wish I could afford to spend several months’ rent on my political interests!

I remarked at the time that the very fact we considered this result a victory demonstrates just how wrong things are going. If it's a political nightmare to build even the most-needed proposals, it's no wonder we can't build the abundant housing, lab space, and infrastructure Cambridge needs to truly flourish.