“…It also had a number of unique features such as 264 E. Ferrari comparatively wide programmatic freedoms and, within the parameters of working in areas of 'market failure', an astonishingly broad spatial focus responding to subregional diagnostics of low demand for housing (see, inter alia, Bramley & Pawson, 2002;Lee & Nevin, 2003;Ferrari & Lee, 2010). Although unique in the sense that it was conceived of 'unlikely alliances' between academics, politicians and local housing organisations (see Cole in this volume), it has drawn sustained criticism from all of these groups as well as local residents, architects and media commentators for its focus on demolition (Allen, 2008;Bond, 2011), devalorisation of built heritage (Wilkinson, 2006), marketisation of housing and neighbourhood (Allen & Crookes, 2009), and purported use of partial knowledge claims in the name of 'evidence' based policy (Webb, 2010). In short, much of the critical literature questions the justness of HMR.…”