In the footsteps of the Heygate forest; in pursuit of public welfare/ interest/ access/ air… 28 APR 2018

28 APR 2018 Walk the Talk w. GM-A

A very quick note (Pt1) to accompany the hand-out from the Walk on Saturday… a small reward for the committed of heart and mind!

A horrible cold morning attracted a perfect number of visitors for sustained conversations and enquiry, establishing an immediate new hinterland for raise horizons of change. Our motivation is threefold; a completely authentic tree-love and trust, a fine-tuned strategic commitment to the only real change wrought from the casual disaster of the Elephant and Castle (non-)regeneration to date, and a larger understanding of systemic failure across London; the need for real and robust alternatives to its various vehicles of development (more on this to come, mark 19th May in your diaries!).

In brief and summary for today. We want to tell a true story of this properly scandalous affair, certainly. The granular detial is important, given the recent uptake of it as a cause and the loud consensus about the related (mostly precarious housing) issues more or less ignored or off-the-table in 2010, and the constant errors made in that belated mainstream media take-up. All those who talk/write now could have done so then, they were in the info. loop to the extent to which they were ‘anybody’ at the time. Trust me. They just missed the significance of it…

But we also want to locate and properly articulate positives if or where they exist, including most crucially; it’s fine and understandable to rage reactively to the contemptuous abuses wreaked by Southwark as a Council and Theresa May’s local political administration (delivering nasty Tory values irrespective of ‘tribe’) or at the failure of Opportunity Area culture, or at specific horrors or individuals, but what do we want to see? It’s crucial not to be merely reactive, but to propose and put in place alternatives. They are legion! And this is the real activism too, isn’t it?

Screenshot 2018-04-29 23.59.13Screenshot 2018-04-29 23.59.15

(this is a long post; to be continued…)



Vote! for an alternative; one North Walworth candidate objected, two little piggies volunteered to speak for the global developers…

Screen Shot 2018-04-15 at 13.55.32

GM-A at Committee 2013; only one North Walworth candidate objected to 3% social rent

I just want to lay some simple facts before you so that if you vote for No Alternative/ More-of-the-Same failed ‘regeneration’ at the Elephant and Castle you do so knowingly. No Alternative, that administration cry, is a lie. Further, administration Councillors appeared for the developers at this Committee Meeting; only one candidate objected to their support for a 3% social rented scheme built in place of Council housing. It’s your choice.

The commercial partnership of Southwark Council and Lendlease, described Phase 1/aka Trafalgar Place scheme as the “flagship” of the broader “regeneration” of the Heygate Estate renamed Elephant Park. They did that until the successful densification; turning 1200 homes into 2500+ units, and 100% public ownership, secure Council tenancies, into 3% social rented equivalents across the whole development, garnered outraged criticism.  No more ‘flagship’, ‘Phase 1’ moved to another site…

In February 2013, not very long ago but all-too easily forgotten by the short-termist-amnesia that pervades these issues and discussions (esp. for local Councillor candidates it seems, who can be heard claiming consistency in principle in 2018!!!) the first of the EP detailed planning applications came to the Planning Committee for their rubber-stamping. Residents all around the Trafalgar Place development which turned 105 Council homes into 235 speculative units with approx 8 ‘retained’ at social rent levels (circa 3%) strongly, uniformly and articulately opposed the application and were completely ignored throughout the (meaningless) ‘process’.

At Planning Committee, I (technically) led the objectors and attach an exact copy of what I was able to say in the ridiculously constrained circumstances, to which two other residents added their versions and additional objections. There was never any doubt about the outcome, the political administration had their place-man in the non-Independent Chair who has a nervous-disorder; any mention of a global-developer causes an arm to shoot out of his head followed by the word YES. The political administration had a built-in majority on the panel and had pulled-in two reserves to say Yes, and it was never in doutb that they would bark obediently and that promotion or favour would follow…

Objections were solid, watertight and well-articulated, they amounted to a plea to honour existing policies, to note the deep reservations that even a Southwark Planning officer had alluded to in their Report -which nevertheless of course recommended approval, despite the failings recorded. The objections were correct, proper and just. I wanted these biddable Councillors to have to face the fact that a bad; socially, politically and ecologically regressive application, began the day owned by a global corporation behaving as it is bound to do but in approving it the responsibility would be owned by them.

Who? Mark Williams, who duly received his promotion to a paid Cabinet position as Head of Regeneration after eagerly approving a 3% social rented housing scheme. The Leader of the Council routinely declaims that there is no alternative to this approach to regeneration, said so recently to support Delancey’s shopping centre application based on the same precedent established at Trafalgar Place and the Heygate/Elephant Park. Williams achieved his 3% socal cleansing scheme with toxic car-park and has now quit, leaving the same brutalised community living with the costs… Will he go directly into Property Development/Communications, or wait a while?

The twitching Chair had already posted his YES by stone-carved tablet so hardly needed to hold his arm back before owning the 3% social rented scheme in all its savage inequity: Nick Dolezal, still possessing the gall to stand as a candidate and since voters don’t actually give a damn about social injustice, will almost certainly get rolled back in to keep on yessing to global developers with their greedy priorities and social violence…

Then there was the Other Labour yes-man whose name I forget… Chris?

One North Walworth Councillor on the Committee abstained which, in the circumstances was brave or anyway appreciated. His two colleagues had volunteered (well, let’s hope they didn’t get expenses too!) their time to come along, as the Planning Committee allows, to offer their positive support for Lendlease’s scheme  -opposed by the entire surrounding community that they notionally represented- especially keen to establish a 3% social rent precedent it seemed. Or a 20% car park in a car-free regeneration because they want your children or your parents, even you, to suffer ill-health with damaged lungs and life chances in order to better serve a global developer’s profits. If it was not these things that motivated them, ask yourself what it could possibly be? There was and is no excuse for behaving in this shameful way, which is why it’s important to mention it now.

In contrast, only one candidate currently standing in North Walworth insisted that there was an alternative to this depraved principle-free rush to social violence in service of economic globalisation at its crudest and bluntest and that person is standing for the Greens in North Walworth.

You could and you can change things; the difficult part is that it is up to you.




Introduction to Phase 1 Planning Committee 5th Feb 2013

My name is Guy Mannes-Abbott and I’m a 23 year long resident of Balfour Street.

I’ll summarise widely-shared objections to this intrusive over-development which have been consistently ignored.

We object to the demolition of 105 Council homes and expulsion of settled families, to be replaced with 8 equivalent units. This despite more than doubling the density on a site which remains publicly owned land. [App for 235 units]

We object to the excessive density of this private estate which generates significant negative impacts: 1,600 extra trips per day, every day, for example. Simply trimming to 210 units -still doubling density- would address several failings. [Site not 1.16 ha but < 1 acc to docs from LA/Jon Abbott Head Regen E&C, & GLA says 0.82]

We object to building 47 car spaces in a car-free regeneration, at a site with the highest possible public transport rating, even its own bus-stop. The direct consequence is a raised, gated courtyard over half the site in place of open green amenity. [13.6% recent local average car-ownership] [Report 117-12: “does not comply… unfortunate… regrettable… recommend approval”!]

We object to the loss of trees, the “public welfare” values, health and well-being that they represent. This undermines GLA policies to mitigate climate change by increasing canopy cover. Replacement tree plans are vague and don’t include large canopy species in defiance of the London Plan. [Report 181 & 135 on LP and SPD 19. What of LP’s 5% rise by 2025?]

The lack of public realm improvements to Balfour Street which services the site is disgraceful. The vague offer of a quarter million pounds is welcome but dwarfed by sums lavished on the site’s interior, £2 million extracted for transport infrastructure elsewhere and £4 million paid for the land. [Report 180. Not a single penny retained. LBS Head of Regen S. Platts “Not one penny for local infrastructure”.]

These socially, politically and ecologically regressive plans are presently owned by Lend Lease. But tonight Councillors, responsibility for the wretched legacy of over-hasty plans will become yours.

(21 pages of footnotes supporting this stupidly brief intervention)


For my candidate’s page go to the Greens site here.

For other candidates in North Walworth and in every Ward in Southwark go here.


Community, community, community: #LondonPlan Debate NLA 5 Feb 2018 #OpportunityForChange


A shortish report (tentative notes rather than rigorous response to the new London Plan) on this debate subtitled; What the new London Plan means for Londoners, held at Friends House, on Euston Road Mon. 5 Feb. 2018.

Take aways?!

. More OAs are the chosen mechanism to deliver a major yearly rise in new housing, growth, infrastructure, and a 50% green city. More densification over a larger area, broader car-free aspirations, air quality measures, ballots?

. Response; 65,000 units p.a. is not deliverable with this model untransformed; London has wised up to the systemic abuses inherent to the OA model, especially where they overlap with the CAZ/added exceptions. The E&C OA exemplifies every regressive failing of the model. To have any chance of delivering, Existing Communities must be formally recognised as the first priority in all considerations; at the top of the list, front of the Plan. All else filters through it…

. Within that formal recognition, a range of new Rights are needed; a Right To Community, a Right to Clean Air, others that articulate entitlements to the largest social, ethical and ecological categories of public welfare/interest… The opposite, then, to the current contemptuous regimes in Southwark, Lambeth, Haringey … These also need precise definitions; community/ies, clean air, plus urgency and clarity with LP’s claimed ‘green’ agenda.

. The effect will be to force authorities to come out of their shells! come down to the ground; engage, explicate, articulate, propose, argue for, explain, show, resource, educate/train (including/especially themselves), involve communities in creating briefs, enhancing, investing, actually regenerating, adding rather than displacing, destroying/severely abusing communities, to generate multi-generational injury. The effect should be to free communities to transform localities themselves; “guerilla-localism” NOT sclerotic/top-down ‘Neighbourhood Planning’, which is the opposite in practice or in nakedly manipulative Southwark. Read more of this post

P.s. to freakish developer free-for-all at E&C; quick/crude heritage assets map

corrected_capitalhomes-connecting-up-eyesores-136-142-new-kent-road.png 937×606 pixels

It’s obvious isn’t it? Every way you come at this.

Apologies for crudeness of this, but we hope it makes the very clear point in relation to Southwark Council’s robust guidelines and characterisation studies, the import of which has been so strongly underscored by the political administration and Mark Williams, Cab Member etc. in particular and only recently in public at Community Council, when seeking to allay well-founded hostility towards the shockingly poor OKR OA process to date…

It’s the developer’s image, already a bit approximate, and annotated only in immediate relation to their gross erection with zero social rent homes within. ‘Heritage Assets’ is the LA’s construction, we would like to note, not the only consideration here. ‘Behind’ that greedy lump of junkitecture, trees mark out the Green Flag park and a school playground, further robust considerations.

It’s obvious isn’t it? Every way you come at this. The application should be withdrawn immediately. If the political administration in Southwark and the Council as an institution refuse to actually learn lessons about their socially, politically, ethically and ecologically regressive track record, why not teach them a lesson? In a small way you can do that by objecting before the 9th December, this Saturday. Read more of this post

object to a freakishly out-of-place New Kent Road tower which rewards developer abuses (by Dec 9th!)


PLEASE object to 17/AP/3910 HERE or by emailing case officer Robin Sedgwick: / T: 020 7525 3920.

We object to the freakishly out-of-place 15 storey tower (on the Kwikfit/Surdaw House site) which breaches the current E&C SPD (which is built-in to the D&A Statement here). It speaks of “providing clarity” (SPD 1.1.4) and “establishing a clear direction” (SPD 3.2.3), using the term “robust” 6 times in relation to those principles, policies and objectives on tall buildings and the provision of social rent units.

It is very clear that this app. should be rejected on these grounds:

| 1. The app. is in breach of policy on affordable housing, providing 0% social rent units -despite its gross form!

| 2. Building Heights: “Moving away from the tallest points, they should diminish in height to manage the transition down to the existing context.”(SPD17) The context, according to the LA’s OKR OA Characterisation Study 2016, is long established residential development of 1-3 storeys, (1.1.3. OKR Characterisation Study 2016 Pt 1). The same SPD provides a map (Fig 14 below) showing “transition in height from existing context” running from this site towards the new town centre at E&C. There is no justification for a tower of such absurd proportions in this location. Read more of this post

On Southwark’s junkitecture, from the #WilkinsonEyreSore to #MaltStreetCarbuncles via #CapitalHomes NKR

#EyreSore blackfriars-tower-london-skyscrapers-uk-architecture-news_dezeen_2364_col_3 #RolfeJudd #CarbuncleACupRunsOver #MaltStreet -04082017-3

The Carbuncle Cup Spilleth Over.

Blackfriars Road to Malt Street: the WilkinsonEyreSore to the RolfeJuddJunkShelf

How often have you heard Southwark’s Cabinet members, councillors and others plead that they have learned lessons from the casual disaster of the Elephant and Castle ‘regeneration’, in particular from the scandalous failures associated with the Heygate Estate and its shameful replacement? These lessons -they have said to us and in our presence for some years now- have been learned and applied in the development of the Aylesbury Estate! Yes, there are some small elements of truth in that -but in general!? So, okay, if not there then definitely, they say, when it comes to the Old Kent Road Opportunity Area!

For years they’ve said that the Heygate was not their fault. Nor the Aylesbury. It was all sort of going-to-happen-anyway, their signatures and sleights notwithstanding, and other people (many of whom went on to work for developers or their consultants incidentally) were and are to blame for it. Anyway! We’ve learned the lessons from those, they say, but we can’t and won’t apologise you understand? No, actually; no we don’t (there are complexities and contingencies but nothing covers a lack of articulation, contrition, or sufficient wit to change course). And no nothing has been learned; the OKR disaster is proceeding at the usual casually witless pace and it will be at least as bad as all the rest.   Read more of this post

on #ElephantPark: after 4 yrs denied access to trees/public welfare/space> #HeygatePark


Heygate Park View August 2017 (Photo credit Forestbank)

Heygate Park View August 2017 (Photo credit Forestbank)

August to August (A Recap)/

It was in August 2013 that Lendlease completely sealed off the site of the old Heygate Estate, all 23 acres of it, including above-ground pavement to pavement access. This despite having been forced to formally/legally recognise, and commit to restore, the “public welfare” of the forest on the site measured by canopy. Crucially, the “tangible and intangible benefits” of those trees were valued using a measure of their accessibility!

Lendlease had to acknowledge those welfare values after our successful campaign and redraw their greedy Masterplan to be very slightly less so. That meant accepting and embracing existing public investment in those trees, their collective canopy and associated benefits. These were banked explicitly in S106 agreements with related commitments to restore the casually destroyed canopy and Lendlease were able to trade-off these promises in subsequent years to very profitable effect. The PR, in itself, is not a problem (we always said to them that they would deserve credit, even rewards, for honouring and implementing their commitments. They were radical changes and Lendlease and Southwark Council have radically failed to deliver so far…).

August 2013 was also when the last resident (Adrian Glasspool) was forcibly carried from his home and discarded like so much public interest and value in the site. The scale of contempt shown and applied on that occasion symbolises the so-called regeneration, from the casually disastrous 2010 Agreement to the displacement and failures to deliver (returnees? revision of social housing quotient per site app? replacing 640 street trees, i.e. 7 within the red lines of the permitted scheme on Balfour Street?) to this day. A lost decade and counting.

We write at the close of August 2017, when a small section of the same open space has been restored to public access, albeit otherwise privatised in its entirety. If there were any doubt about the latter, the simple recognition of its total enclosure for 4 years on the whim of a global corporate developer and its sudden re-opening for PR purposes should resolve it!

It makes for several issues and problems;

. Should the remaining, surviving, existing community go there?

. What happens if you do?

. If we go and invest our histories, decencies, credibility, how compromising is it? Is it not part of the quick-buck amnesia? An unearned reward for the scandals, profiteering and contempt?

. What does this (all) mean and what should we do now?

We will respond to some of these things now and some later, not least because responses will evolve.

Access, Access, Access/

Firstly, we argued (many things very consistently!) that Lendlease should be forced to conduct a CAVAT survey in 2011, which they were very reluctant to do. Even when doing it, they indulged in a pathetic charade and would not admit that they had until conceding that their valuation of the canopy value, which is to say the public welfare of its commons, was “pound for pound the same as yours” (c£14,500,000). Figures and details can be contested and picked-over (since they’ve failed to honour their obligations and cheated the valuations in the process, replacing street trees with less accessible/’valuable’ estate trees) but the argument was handsomely won.

Part of that argument was that along with this specific recognition it was correspondingly vital that access to the forest, trees and public welfare (which includes, explicitly, ‘soft’ benefits like peace of mind, mental and physical health, never mind lessening of air and noise pollution, never mind convenience, public rights of way, aesthetic pleasure, places to meet and so, again, access, access, access) would continue throughout the process. Of course, there would be days, perhaps even weeks of temporary relocation even closure for some major element of demolition or construction, but access means access. We know what it means (1).

The point was that having publicly recognised the value of the trees and their collectivity as an existing forest, and with Lendlease legally committed to no longer destroy all the trees as intended (2), ongoing access was required. The forest exists ‘now’, it will continue to exist in part and in full restoration ‘afterwards’. As such, continued access was vital as well as common sensical. In an actual regeneration this would be understood as essential to retaining any social or political credibility and even as a duty of care by a Local Authority. They would offer and insist. Not in Southwark!

If this was an ‘unusual’ argument to make, then the campaign and its strategy was so unusual as to be unique. But who cares about unusual; the argument was won and ongoing access was always a key part of it. So, for the political administration and anyone else to continue carping about unfair critics of the scandalous failures of the Elephant and Castle regeneration, except in delivering vast profits for Lendlease, this is a perfect example of why they failed so badly. They failed to understand the social, political, ecological and ethical point (3).

Apologies for the circuitousness of this, which demonstrates why it’s hard to write about in brief! The immediate purpose is to respond to the Now. However, this stolen access is very important to understand as one of the many large elements in the failure of the Elephant and Castle regeneration in just about every respect. There is and can not be any justification for this single element alone.


So, now, bingo: a bit of access again (4). Bingo; here we are standing next to maturing London planes imprisoned for 4 years, able to embrace them as we did when measuring their trunks to establish their canopy value using the CAVAT mechanism. Literally hugging them, yes. Only the kinds of vile spivs at Lendlease don’t touch trees, feel their warmth and textures, listen to their rustling leaves, the song and dance of bird and other companion species.

The Six Old Men August 2017, Looking West (Photo Credit Forestbank)

The Six Old Men Heygate Park August 2017 (Photo Credit Forestbank)

We are standing before two of the Six Old Men, as we called these liberated trees. Stand in the middle of the two that almost hold hands and the other survivors fall into place in their background to the west. This pair stood just beyond the common green area between Cuddington blocks where many a party, occasional Forest Feast and other gatherings took place. The zig-zagging staircase that was so often beautifully lit on the gable end of the last Cuddington block running westwards, detailed with a stencilled white reindeer in the last years, was right beside them. Adrian’s rear garden opened out to the shared green area nearby.

Should we be grateful that Lendlease stuck to some of their obligations and didn’t also destroy these two trees, for example? Well, given how many other abuses and serial ‘minor’ planning changes that they cheated through since permissions were gained in 2013, the answer has to be in expletives. Of course not. These trees, their collective value, their commons and those precious canopy benefits were recognised as ours before being confiscated and now returned when they should have remained with us all along. So, no. No. Definitely not.

The Great Silver Maple/

There is a little more for now. Go to the north east corner of this restored greenspace and look through the pretty cut-out shapes made in the fence there. Oh isn’t it all such FUN!! – on the site of such violence and brutal contempt for people and all public values. Peer through there or climb up onto the chunkier parts of the fencing nearby and get a better view; you deserve it, there’s no question of stealing a view here. It’s yours. What do you see? You see The Great Silver Maple. Reduced but recovering and still standing in place (5).


The Great Silver Maple changed everything, at the time. It was the first sign (along with Chearsley Copse), that Lendlease were going to admit defeat and recognise the forest. In June 2011. In speech and emails, well archived. We said, oh goodness knows how many times and in how many inflections, that The Great Silver Maple was going nowhere, that it would still be here after Lendlease had upped and gone, with or without their garbage dump regen (6). And so it proved on paper and so it proves in fact.

Look through there, turn to the right side and there are the two/three even more pollarded London planes, behind which was the raised pond and beyond that was the Information Centre and people’s pop-up cinema where many a thoughtful word was exchanged, commitment made and kept, song and dance made. Where food growers gathered to cook, share and eat soundly organic produce. Where things could have continued to be so different, instead of predictable and thoughtless in the face of the machines of global capital and all its desperately over-eager little helpers…

London planes August 2017 (Photo Credit Forestbank)

London planes Heygate Park August 2017 (Photo Credit Forestbank)

Look through and you can see The GSM, the LPs and one or perhaps two of those fine lime trees that were central to the shading of the allotments. Allotments which were an attempt to tackle the 10 year long waiting list in the area by making good use of small parcels of the 23 acres owned by Southwark Council. Sadly, they felt differently, desperate to give the land away to global-corp investors so that those developers could do further lucrative deals with chain restaurants to return and sell you back some garbage with flaky claims about provenance knowing very few care to remember or just care. Right?


Chearsley and Cuddington Copses August 2017 (Photo Credit Forestbank)

Chearsley and Cuddington Copses Heygate Park August 2017 (Photo Credit Forestbank)

Look through and in the far distance, still completely enclosed, there remain the eleven trees of Chearsley Copse, and beyond those it seems the five of Cuddington Copse. Of course, without public access to this community wide regeneration space we can’t be sure.

Return, Revisit, Recover?/

Should we return, revisit, recover? Yes, of course. It’s ours. It was ours, the trees symbolise that it was, is and always will be and so despite the privatising of our space, welfare and interests, assume a short life for triumphant spivery and meanwhile reclaim the space! There are many problems with this, which we fully recognise. Already Lendlease and their no-brainer army are trying to rebrand, instrumentalise the space for their own ends. Their ends were and are never about public access though are they? They didn’t and won’t walk through the space under the trees to get from A to B. For them the word ‘walk’ is part of that vacuous lexicon of opportunity, vibrancy, long-term, green, community, place-making, healthy lifestyle choices…

We need to restore the publicness of this space otherwise we demonstrate that it meant nothing all along. It is not a defeat to stand there under the canopy fought for so successfully or in the public space lost but recoverable, or in exactly the same common space as there was before so many vile and thoughtless people took a percentage out of it. Instead, stand there and feel the way that nothing elemental has changed at all. Actuality, common wealth and interests cannot be erased so easily, they are not today’s special pizza and you can feel that between the two Old Men we began with.

They wanted you, all of us, to take their contemptuous punches and disappear in the shadows they want so desperately to make with their penthouse-extensions. The whole point of their exercise: profit, now relies upon well hedged predictability. So let’s not be. Predictable.

Heygate Park/

That is today’s business, easily done. But we would like to offer some further thoughts about all this, where it might go, or ideas to develop in the coming weeks. It comes down to something simple; they will make it in their vapid, banal, sweat-shopped image and we might want to force a rethink on that. What we might do instead is resume Urban Forest School activities, which were, you may recall, premised upon Irish hedge schools, the radical democracy of the rural Indian panchayat, soft and ecological anarchism. What we should do is hold to the long-term (and perhaps our noses) against their obsessively short short-terms.

Anyway, what better place to gather and exchange upon bolder, brighter, radically different futures than Heygate Park? What better way to begin than by renaming it as such, after its landmark connecting road?! What better way to upset and sideline them…

To be continued (less verbosely: it’s been a while!) …



(1) Access: to declare a sustained interest, Southwark Council were prepared to discuss, engage, acknowledge and eventually make verbal assurances to be developed on this, with regard to the main site. It was substantially progressed over months, the arguments above found persuasive, all objections addressed, work done steadily. But LL categorically refused to entertain any conversation about the main site, re-offering a hanky plot off Wansey Street that we’d not taken up from LBS months earlier, and making furious assertions about how they overrode LBS in all such respects in autumn 2011. They found their breathless urban parsleyites and that ended the long strategic battle for the main site and access, which you can see is tightly woven into our argument. Urban parsley means developer’s flotsam; always the same wherever it wheels up… In any case, you judge whether there was meaningful public access and interim use of the Heygate Estate site post 2013, or not.

(2) But also replace one to one every tree they chose to destroy, plus 1200 linked to site and yet off-site or radiating beyond the site to restore, yes, restore, that public welfare value in the destroyed canopy of the Heygate forest.

(3) To be fair, they were aided in that by desperate narcissists who leapt at a chance to perform as urban parsley and so got them off the immediate hook. The details of that pitiful surrender, very well documented, may yet one day find a public stage. Suffice to say that the forest -its public space and access to both- was never ‘mobile’.

(4) Or no bingo for much longer, of course, if Southwark and their far too close friends Delancey get their way at the commercial hub of their plans.

(5) It’s noteworthy that the Robinia pseudoacacias -aka Black Locusts- to the north of The GSM have all gone, as have almost all of the original 22 in the forest. They obviously regard Black Locusts as an unwelcome element in their neat little worldview…

(6) That is: however nicely detailed, it’s a grossly inflated heap of facade, at least-double scale anything appropriate and all private at public expense: socially, politically and even ecologically regressive. Emblematic of everything wrong with our era, it should be ruinous of the careers and reputation of everyone involved.