msw
|
Re:21st century architecture - 2006/08/30 02:14
The issue surely is not about wanting to hold things back. Isn't it more about people who live here being actively involved in defining the townscape so that it reflects life here in its reality rather than what is being projected by one man and his architect, neither of whom have the capacity to ensure that their overall vision is realised anyway. The fact is that the plans will never be built as they stand, as the developer is clear in his intention to sell off a major part of the development if the outline planning permission is granted to a larger outfit such as Barratt. They will not have to stick to the overall vision and the developer and the architect cannot ensure that they do or honour any commitment to the town to make sure that the finished product is what they suggested it would be in their exhibition - not necessarily through any desire to mislead on their part but just because they will not be in the driving seat if they sell parcels on. That job will sit with our planners who will, if they grant the outline permission, then have an interest in maintaining egg free faces.
Surely the whole point of leaving a legacy is that we leave something we can be proud of which is rooted in the essence of the town and which reflects some sense of this to future generations. In order to do this, the starting point should be a plan from the town which reflects need rather than a plan from the developer which inevitably reflects a profit margin, in this case according to the Angel Properties website, a margin of at least a 25% return on investment.
|
