On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:55:06 -0700, John B wrote:

To be fair, the only things TfL are seeking to destroy in Camden is
the chavvy Stables market right by the station selling pirated CDs and
'Adihash' t-shirts, and one of the capital's least appealing music
venues.

That might be fair enough if the development was in some way
necessary, but the fact was that the "seven-storey tower of shops and
flats" was entirely gratuitous. It's surprising that they thought
their application had any chance of success.

And while some degree of ground-floor-level development may be
necessary to cater for entry/exit flows, the impending avalance of
interchange traffic that will need to be dealt with if the line is
split won't even be going anywhere near the surface.

On 24 Aug, 13:42, asdf wrote:
To be fair, the only things TfL are seeking to destroy in Camden is
the chavvy Stables market right by the station selling pirated CDs and
'Adihash' t-shirts, and one of the capital's least appealing music
venues.

That might be fair enough if the development was in some way
necessary, but the fact was that the "seven-storey tower of shops and
flats" was entirely gratuitous. It's surprising that they thought
their application had any chance of success.

And while some degree of ground-floor-level development may be
necessary to cater for entry/exit flows, the impending avalance of
interchange traffic that will need to be dealt with if the line is
split won't even be going anywhere near the surface.

Wasn't the point that, if TfL were allowed to build a tower of shops
and flats, as well as making that particular part of Camden less
scabby and unpleasant, it would also pay for the redevelopment works?
(see also: Liverpool Street, Charing Cross, etc)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:48:35 -0700, John B wrote:

That might be fair enough if the development was in some way
necessary, but the fact was that the "seven-storey tower of shops and
flats" was entirely gratuitous. It's surprising that they thought
their application had any chance of success.

Wasn't the point that, if TfL were allowed to build a tower of shops
and flats, as well as making that particular part of Camden less
scabby and unpleasant,

It is not "scabby and unpleasant" to a whole subculture of people who
use it. I find that attitude to be most ignorant.

it would also pay for the redevelopment works?

It would have covered 10% of the cost.

(see also: Liverpool Street, Charing Cross, etc)

AFAIK those didn't involve the unnecessary demolition of surrounding
markets, nightclubs, etc. The office blocks also fit in with the local
areas there.

On 24 Aug, 15:47, asdf wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:48:35 -0700, John B wrote:
That might be fair enough if the development was in some way
necessary, but the fact was that the "seven-storey tower of shops and
flats" was entirely gratuitous. It's surprising that they thought
their application had any chance of success.

Wasn't the point that, if TfL were allowed to build a tower of shops
and flats, as well as making that particular part of Camden less
scabby and unpleasant,

It is not "scabby and unpleasant" to a whole subculture of people who
use it. I find that attitude to be most ignorant.


More significantly, whether anyone likes the feel of Camden or not, it
IS the reason why so many people go there. It's completely illogical
to provide capacity for people to go there while removing the
attraction to go there in the process.



it would also pay for the redevelopment works?

It would have covered 10% of the cost.

(see also: Liverpool Street, Charing Cross, etc)

AFAIK those didn't involve the unnecessary demolition of surrounding
markets, nightclubs, etc. The office blocks also fit in with the local
areas there.