The post you are reporting:
As I always say it's great that someone is prepared to put their head above the parapet and well done to Paul Watkins for doing this. You have such a demanding task and it means so much to hear your responses. Howard, supermarkets do offer the anchor for many developments, but this development almost functions in isolation. If you think what has happened in Folkestone is good town planning. Funny that the shops mentioned literaly living in the shadow of the all great Asda, are the few things you can't buy in the folkestone Asda. According to my sister who lives in Folkestone (and likes supermarkets) there are also casualties.
Marek although all your ideas all have their charm, I don't think they really offer a development plan that is any more sustainable than the Asda option. We do not live in inner London and the prospect of creating a farm in a town centre surrounded by rural areas borders on the ironic. The leisure facilities are all wonderful but backing would be impossible to find, as these things are always strategically placed, and in our current age this isn't beside the sea with poor infrastructure. These things would only happen if necessary elements and potential preceded them. As for the Victorian town...why? Why not Georgian or even Roman. I love Victorian street scene, but if I want twee recreations I'll go to DisneyLand or Prince Charles' "attempt" at town planning, Poundsbury. But actually if people want to visit that, why not go to the real thing?
Roger, it is not a good design. I'm sure this is what the developers are saying to the council and letting them 'tweak' elements to make them feel a sense of control and OK, it is marginally more sensitive than the usual lumps of 'Kingspan' clad sheds thrown up by Asda. Sir Lord Sainsbury is about the only person concerned with the good design of supermarkets (Greenwich Sainsbury is wonderful). Wal-Mart is not, they just like things cheap...and preferably made by exploited children in developing countries.
Supermarkets are sustainable...self sustainable and that is the point. They don't rely on anything other than the road going to them and from them, although I'm sure they would get rid of the latter given half a chance. The road in this case is questionable. I fully appreciate the offer we have is the only one on the table but find this offer merely a catalyst for negativity. Quality urban space and architecture is inspirational and used as a tool to sell towns and cities. Supermarkets are not as they encompass so much that is negative modernity and work in isolation for their own interests (how will they contribute to 'help' local trade?). Mixed use developments return lower but consistent returns to developers and seem to be the basis for so many new projects here and on the continent at such and achievable level. They build on infrastructure and attempt to build social capacity; no one can deny the need for housing in this country (more so than anywhere in europe). To use this as in combination with other built elements, providing routes through the site, new connections and revived facilities makes so much sense and works so beautifully elsewhere.
I also understand that so many do so much for Dover and are fighting a tough battle, especially when being faced with the negativity of those they are trying to best represent. Perhaps the route of negativity is partially to do with the fact the belief of people in this town, that believe it is worthy of so much are being offered such mediocrity. We rightly think we are worthy of to be the jewel of Kent, bur are being given something from Elizabeth Duke.