Housebuilders rushing to adopt the 'regeneration' moniker are in danger of turning the term into little more then a buzzword says Building's assistant editor

Anyone else get the feeling that 'housing regeneration specialist' is just housebuilder by another term?

Yesterday Gleeson reminded the City in a contract win announcement – a 442 home PFI scheme in Ashford, Kent – that it is 'transforming itself' into a regeneration specialist.

Hmmm… just about any new scheme, housing or otherwise, can be described as 'regeneration', whether it is really in that spirit or not. After all, they’re adding something new that should improve the area. The supercasino will probably help improve Manchester, yet most would argue that the city has already been regenerated.

'Regeneration' as a word seems to be a bit wrong as well. Is the Thames Gateway a regeneration? It strikes me it is an attempt to generate or create a completely new area, not a renewal of what is already there.

So is Gleeson truly a regeneration specialist? That will really depend on its body of work over the next few years - whether it really has restored areas of urban or rural blight to its former glory or even greater heights. Otherwise, it is just a housebuilder, though not any more guilty than others of claiming their estates are regeneration projects, when they are really just housing schemes.

Maybe I am being too cynical, but regeneration seems to me to be little more than a buzzword at the moment.