News of the impending transformation of the Crispin Centre in Street has ignited a wave of reactions across social media platforms.

Aberdare Estates Ltd, the centre's current owners, recently announced that they plan to raze the once-bustling complex to make room for a retirement housing development in partnership with Churchill Retirement Living.

This development, intended for individuals over 60, has provoked a spectrum of responses from the public, with some upset about the loss of the precinct and others hailing it as necessary progress.

The Crispin Centre was established in 1979, housing a Tesco Metro store, a café, and a small selection of independent shops. But after the closure of Tesco, customer footfall decreased dramatically, forcing businesses to leave.

If the planned demolition does go ahead, Poole Resources, Specsavers, Boots, and WH Smiths will continue to operate from their premises, which face out onto the High Street.

With the latest plans for the site's future, social media has been awash with conversations on this topic, and opinions vary considerably.

An analysis of the online dialogue shows a distinct divide. Several locals express sadness at the loss of a shopping centre that, in its heyday, served as a bustling hub of community activity.

Users like Susan Young reminisce about the centre's glory days: "What a shame, I remember it when all the shops there were full. Then they closed Tesco. That's when it went downhill. To this day, I don't understand why they did that."

Others, like Vicky Horner, expressed nostalgia: "Oh, the memories I have of going shopping in Tescos with my Mum and walking through there on my way to and from school."

However, the dominant narrative in these online conversations revolves around the type of development replacing the centre. A significant number of users argue that the proposed retirement flats should instead be affordable housing for all age groups and expressed frustration at the lack of affordable housing options for younger residents.

Interestingly, a few commentators highlighted the area's lack of support for small businesses. Zoe Malone wrote: "This is disappointing; it should be turned into small independent businesses and pop-up restaurants."

On the other side of the debate, some individuals championed the development as a positive step. They view it as a solution to the problem of an empty, decaying building and as an opportunity to meet the housing needs of older residents.

"Very sad, but it looks awful empty...better to do something positive with it," noted Rita Rogers.

Despite differing views, it's clear that the community holds a shared concern for the future of the village. Whether reminiscing about the past or debating the best use of the space, all comments reflect a deep-rooted connection to Street. As the situation evolves, these exchanges of views underscore the importance of public dialogue and engagement in shaping the direction of local developments.