I think you're arguing at cross-purposes. Terminus House is social housing (no-one's arguing that it's not, and that it's not bad), what they're describing in S

I think you're arguing at cross-purposes. Terminus House is social housing (no-one's arguing that it's not, and that it's not bad), what they're describing in SF is different as it's commercial, and certainly at least medium-grade private housing. Whether or not the free market has caused the use of private companies to provide project style social housing on the fringes of cities (short answer: of course it has) is somewhat irrelevant compared with converting city-centre commercial property into private accommodation. >> sounds like the residents were placed in this building by government > council didn't 'choose' to put people there Again, your response isn't to the point being made really - no-ones really arguing against your point. Just because they didn't have any real alternative doesn't invalidate the point that they did it.