A desire to create beautiful things is what inspires us all and visions of personal legacy and public adulation are undoubtedly an intoxicating mix for many who come into the profession.

But architecture is ultimately about people and shouldering the responsibility of delivering on the expectations of those people who are directly affected by your work – the people whose quality of life depends on it – quickly puts adolescent reveries into perspective.

There can be no greater professional responsibility than being involved in the demolition of somebody’s home – even with the express intent of building something better in its place – and it is with this in mind that the recent interjection by the Centre for Social Justice should be welcomed. Its claim that many mono-tenure estates built in the last century have suffered because of ‘misguided ideas about architecture and neighbourhood design’ is only half right but the idea that resident input into design should be enshrined in a legal framework has the potential to benefit all parties.

It would be understandable if developers saw a move to enforce a culture of ‘co-design’ between architects and residents as another bureaucratic imposition but the obvious quid quo pro of this kind of engagement is better relationships with all stakeholders and more importantly, quicker approvals, the panacea for developers who are making the investment and residents whose lives are being turned upside down. We talk of these estates in abstract terms but they are people’s homes, beloved for all their failings as the places where residents enjoyed the rich tapestry of their lives. Ultimately the residents of these estates just want normality and if it has been decided that their home has a date with the bulldozer then they want to have a say what is going to replace it rather than being the subject of somebody else’s experiment.

If we can get this right it really could be what dreams are made of.