A literary critic buys a house for a particular amenity it offers, namely the sublime experience of walking through a former quarry/rubbish tip near by. On discovering that it is being developed through a community-based design process, he organizes a doorknock petition to oppose the proposal. He is unsuccessful, and concludes that there is no place in local politics for aesthetic discourse. This critique of the design process is shared with what is assumed to be a rather narrow audience. I will assume a broader one for this rejoinder.

I enjoy what I know of Simon During’s work, and I have found him an incisive voice in a time of fashionably unfathomable writing. His essay ‘Clifton Hill: Aesthetics and Local Politics’ raises important questions about the relationship of intellectual discourse to everyday practice and the politics of place. What are the obligations of an intellectual who not only tries to ‘theorize difference’ from an academic enclave, but also engages with the real differences that constitute the politics of place? During’s conclusions have disturbing implications for the role of the intellectual in public debate. But first I must address a few logical and factual problems with his critique of the design process.