The “winner” of the 2014 Carbuncle Cup, a prize given out by Building Design magazine for ugliest new architectural development, has been announced: and it is Woolwich Central. Built by Spenhill, Tesco’s property development arm, Woolwich Central is home to a car park and a huge Tesco Extra store. Above the Tesco are a series of new flats. One of them is mine.

Yes, the first flat I ever bought, which until that moment I’d been quite proud of, has been pronounced a carbuncle. I’m not going to say Woolwich Central is a work of art, but having spent some time searching for a first home, I viewed a fair amount of bland, nondescript new developments. What I liked about Woolwich Central was that it looked a bit different. I’m no architect, but it seemed as if someone had taken a pretty tough brief – when does a building that houses a huge supermarket ever look attractive? – and tried to be a bit creative.

Inside, it even feels quite beautiful. Every day I walk past the concierge on the ground floor and take a lift up to the eighth. I then walk outside, through a sky garden with trees and plants and a children’s play area, to reach my flat. If that wasn’t sufficiently cute and picturesque, a mother duck moved into the sky garden over the summer and gave birth to five ducklings. The ducklings have grown up now, and can be seen happily wandering around the development, still all walking in a line even though by now they’re pretty big. I can’t help thinking that Prince Charles, who seems to have coined the term carbuncle as an insult for ugly new buildings, would approve of the ducks.

Reading the judges’ descriptions of Woolwich Central, I am confused. Surely “defensive, arrogant and inept” are insults you direct at people (such as Carbuncle Cup judges, who probably don’t have to worry about trying to get on the housing ladder), not buildings? Woolwich Central is not defensive: it is always open, it has a 24/7 supermarket. It is not arrogant: it is more affordable than most new developments in London, as evidenced by the large number of first-time buyers who live in the flats. Inept? To me, it seems pretty functional. Architectural tastes are well known for changing over time. When I complained about my home’s new carbuncular status, my friends consoled me with pictures of Preston bus station, designed in the brutalist architectural style that was apparently considered ugly for a very long time. It has now been granted Grade II listed building status. Perhaps my home will someday also be protected? I’m not exactly holding my breath, but you never know.

Beyond the artistic debate, however, the criticisms around the effect Woolwich Central has had on the local area seem particularly unwarranted. Alex Grant’s recent article in the Guardian was disappointing – surely a councillor who claims responsibility for approving my nice new home would have something positive to say about it? Nope, he just thinks it was a big mistake. He agrees with Building Design magazine that Woolwich Central “diminishes the efforts of those who have worked hard to regenerate this run-down, deprived part of London”. As a new resident, I disagree. I am starting to feel a sense of community within Woolwich Central; we had an end-of-summer party in the sky garden for all the residents just a few weeks ago. It was a great chance to meet all my neighbours, and I realised the vast majority were just like me: young, professional, first-time buyers, thrilled to get their foot on the property ladder. “Crossrail is coming” is the mantra on every resident’s lips, but there is more to it than that. We swapped tips on the area (Blue Nile, a recently opened Ethiopian restaurant, and Kailash Momo, a Tibetan one, both on Woolwich New Road, got high praise). Grant complains that there are no “independent retailers” in Woolwich Central itself. True. They are just across the road. As residents, we’re eager to see what turns up next, but it won’t exactly help matters if the message in the press is that the efforts to regenerate the area are failing.

In today’s London, the vast majority are priced out of the housing market, the population is increasing and the need for new homes is a government priority. Are these critics helping matters by naming and shaming an admittedly different-looking development that has tried to do something novel in an up-and-coming area? Do we want to discourage new ideas for the efficient use of space? Are skyscraping tower blocks really the only answer? I hope not. I will continue to be proud of my flat and enjoy all of the benefits of living above a 24/7 supermarket, which I have come to regard as my second fridge. If the building is good enough for the ducks, it’s good enough for me.

• To Hull and back: the rebirth of Britain’s poorest city