on the one hand this, on the other hand that

Yesterday's Guardian carried some reaction about the subject of the Pathfinder "advertorial/not advertorial" which prompted such an outcry from columnist Simon Jenkins.
On the letters page, three organisations involved in Housing Market Renewal in their own ways put forward their viewpoints - the balance coming down slightly on the side of the controversial scheme.
It's worth reading. But, for the short of time or the not so interested, here's a quick flavour of what was said:

* Adam Wilkinson of conservation charity SAVE Britain's Heritage:
"The buildings are not the cause of the wider problems that surround them. Accusing those who love the streets and homes they live in of "keeping the poor in their place" demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the situation."

* Tom Bloxham, chairman of Urban Splash: "Many of the areas Urban Splash and Pathfinders are active in have suffered decades of neglect. Regeneration is complicated and it's right to experiment with different ideas.
"Undoubtedly the Pathfinders are making mistakes but they are also getting a lot right. The sooner we move from the debate about demolition or restoration into a debate about quality architecture and place the better."

* The chairs of all eight Pathfinders: "The Pathfinders did pay the Guardian to run a supplement. This was to counter ill-informed media coverage....The points Simon Jenkins raised on demolition are valid matters for debate: demolition is not cheap or easy. But it is often necessary to improve the lives of families who have lived in appalling conditions for far too long."