The late novelist JG Ballard was expert at creating urban dystopias, peopled by rapacious inhabitants eaten up by boredom and greed, living in tastelessly opulent settings, diversity and ordinary life banished. That is not yet London.

However, the rising tide of predictions about the future shape of the capital points towards the nightmarish consequences of a profoundly unequal city. One that is remodelled by the excesses of foreign wealth and the domination of the financial sector with its grossly swollen salaries, depleting the capital's civic health. Already, the average citizen is priced out of London, followed by the exile of the professional middle class. This is as more money is diverted from political crises overseas, including the current stand-off in the Ukraine, into what the mayor, Boris Johnson, calls "blocks of bullion", residences in Kensington, Mayfair and Chelsea with a multi-million pound price tag.

In the past year, property prices in central London have risen 12.5%, as "investor visas" are bought for £1 million and now Ukranians and Russians seek a safe haven for their cash. In Bishop's Avenue in north London – "millionaires' row" already – 15 houses worth £350m sit derelict, yet their "value" increases by the day in this dangerously inflated property market. The knock-on effect is toxic. In 2012, three quarters of new builds in London went to foreign buyers. Some rent; some visit for only a few weeks a year. In the next four years, average house prices in the capital now at a ridiculous £441,000 could rise by 36% compared with a rise in the north of just 4.2%.

A recent report in the Financial Times suggested that even high earners in London are affected – entire boroughs such as Camden and Hammersmith are "no-go" areas for middle-class professionals. As the FT says, "Even those with a net household income of more than £58,000 – just edging into the top 5% of all earners – would be unable to afford a home in more than one in four London neighbourhoods.

Chris Hamnett, professor of geography at King's College London, claims that the capital's property is now used by the global rich as "a process of global asset diversification". Bricks and mortar in our capital have morphed into a currency. But many are locked out of these transactions.

In London, there are 800,000 on the housing waiting list; overcrowding is rife; house building is at an abysmal low. Private landlords thrive as demand outstrips supply and ordinary citizens see a huge proportion of their income go on rent if they can afford it at all. The uber-rich spent £4bn in London last year keeping their very private lives afloat – schools, health, staff, shopping. But that comes at a cost to the non-material richness of the capital too.

It is not just those on the average salary who are exiled from their own city; professionals vital to the capital are also priced out. London Labour MP Frank Dobson says consultants for London's hospitals on salaries of £75,000 plus, can't afford the cost of a two-bedroom flat, let alone a family home.

In his current series, Mind the Gap, (part two on BBC1 tomorrow), economist and journalist Evan Davis eulogises the verve of the capital that attracts the despots and crooks but also the talented and highly qualified. Davis argues that talent attracts more talent so money, companies and people are pouring into the capital like never before. But, a warning: there is also a cultural forfeit to this dedication to making of money.

London is home to two-thirds of all artists' studios. Recently a former biscuit factory in Bermondsey that was home to 400 artists was sold to convert it into 800 high-end flats. The colour in the capital that comes from the energy and creativity of artists, among others, is drained. Jonathan Harvey runs Acme Studios, a charity that helps artists to find studios. "Artists are pioneers of regeneration because they go where others don't," he says. "But they are also the victims as they get priced out."

A further major concern is about what the influx of foreign wealth is doing to the common weal and the integrity of this government. Last Monday, a Foreign Office official was pictured carrying a confidential report for David Cameron, advising how to respond to Crimea. It recommended that Britain should, "not support, for now trade sanctions," nor should it, "close London's financial centre to Russians". On Friday, Ben Judah wrote an angryarticle for the New York Times, that, judging from its response in blogs and on Twitter, hit a nerve. While the White House has imposed visa restrictions and President Obama has issued an executive order enabling further sanctions, Judah pointed out: "Britain is ready to protect the City of London's hold on dirty Russian money. And forget about Ukraine. … It has turned back to the pirate England of Sir Walter Raleigh…" Judah charged.

This is Britain's growth business today. London is desperate for change: for more affordable house building; the imposition of rent controls; the licensing of landlords; a mansion tax; increased council tax for empty properties (a 150% hike operates in Camden for those left empty for more than two years); a higher minimum wage and compulsory purchase orders, plus tougher planning regulations and restrictions on the proportion of overseas buyers per development.

Nationally, realignment is vital. More regionalism and local control of budgets and greater support for the efforts of our provincial cities to create networks should all be supported.

Currently, the physical map of London is being transformed by projects such as the Shard; the Qatari-owned 72-floor skyscraper in Southwark. The maintenance of this luxury address falls to economic refugees bussed in from over-priced bed-sits two hours away, struggling on a minimum wage.

In London, The Biography, Peter Ackroyd, writes that "Resurgam" (I will arise), was the word found upon a piece of tomb stone just when Wren began his work upon St Paul's Cathedral. He placed it at the centre of his design. London has arisen many times. Today, is it rising again but will it be as a capital city for all its citizens in synch with the rest of the UK?

Increasingly, public officials in cities such as New York, Berlin and Paris are raising concerns about housing and inequality and impact of a global super-rich. That debate has only just started in the UK.

The next mayoral elections should become the platform for a debate about how we want the city to develop for the benefit of all – not just a few – of its inhabitants. It's time for Londoners to start taking back their city.