On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:

On Apr 24, 6:57*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, MIG wrote:
On 24 Apr, 16:54, Mizter T wrote:
On 24 Apr, 16:19, MIG wrote:

On 24 Apr, 15:48, Mizter T wrote:

On 24 Apr, 15:29, MIG wrote:

Nearly as bizarre as demolishing Camden in order to accommodate the
number of people who go to Camden to visit the things that are being
demolished.

Whilst I absolutely understand where you're coming from, the plan
doesn't involve "demolishing Camden", it just doesn't.

Poetic licence, but the points are ... points.

Understood. TBH I haven't properly got my head round the plans for
Camden Town yet, but whilst my initial thoughts were along the lines of
yours, I've since come to the understanding that they are not in fact
that radical.

It's not demolition of the whole of Camden, no, but it's a bit like saying
the plan for Parliament Square isn't that radical because it's only
Westminster Abbey that's being demolished.

It probably deserves a separate thread on utl sometime soon.

Separated!

In Camden, far from the station, the Stables market at least is under
threat,

Are you sure? I've just spent some time looking through documents related
to the proposed rebuilding, and there's no mention of the Stables. How are
they related to the plan?

That's what I meant about lumping together different plans. The
Stables is under threat, but not from the station rebuilding.

Okay, got you. So why is the Stables under threat? Is it just general
redevelopment?

tom

--
It's never too late to change the future.