too soon?

Feb. 9th, 2008 11:26 pm
daf: (Default)
[personal profile] daf
so, camden town's been ablaze tonight.



i can't help think that the timing and location of the fire is just a little bit suspicious.

what with the successful redevelopment of the stables market; the increase in property prices and continual gentrification, it does, on first appearances, look like their will be some people making an awful lot of money as a result of this unfortunate incident.

not that i'd ever be the one to point fingers, or anything, but come on... it is just a little too convenient
(deleted comment)

(no subject)

Date: 2008-02-10 12:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] crazymeandave.livejournal.com
yeah. i don't for one minute think insurance moneys would be motivation for such a fire.

but if the place is razed, there's no longer the argument for "keeping it as it is because of it's important heritage"
(deleted comment)

(no subject)

Date: 2008-02-10 01:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] crazymeandave.livejournal.com
indeed. the ones that had "survived the redevelopment" are now in dire need of exactly that

(no subject)

Date: 2008-02-09 11:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] haltedlogic.livejournal.com
This is really awful :[

(no subject)

Date: 2008-02-10 12:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mupstasia.livejournal.com
Thats the first thing I said to Alan! But then I found out it is the Lock Market which is shitty and could use redevelopment anyway into something more then a spooky kid haven.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-02-10 01:18 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] crazymeandave.livejournal.com
first it was kensington market, next the stables, now the lock... pretty soon there'll be nowhere catering to a large "alternative" customer base.

it'll probably get filled with starbucks, gap & other high-street stores and of course, lots of lovely, expensive, canal side apartments.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-02-10 02:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mupstasia.livejournal.com
The stables hasn't really changed much though has it? And can you actually name any alternative shops in the canal market? It is just pop up stalls selling london tat and a million copies of what the local alternative tourists happen to be buying at the time. It needs redeveloping into a market that attracts proper unique traders and have space for small shops. It won't have a starbucks or gap because it's not in a prominent enough location. And also the council says (if we believe them is another matter!) that no shops will be allowed in the redevelopment of the markets if they have more then 10 shops.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-02-10 11:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elle-is-for.livejournal.com
don't be so ridiculous - the area that was damaged is a storage area and part of the canal market, which has been around less than 10 years anyway IIRC. none of it was in need of redevelopment, none of it will have been insured - if anything Camden Markets will probably end up having to compensate the stall holders. there's nothing to suggest that this was anything other than an accident.
I'm also kind of sick of people kicking off about the stables redevelopment - it's made the market 10 times better. there's more room, it's easier to get around, there are more stalls and the slightly higher rents have only forced out the wankers selling touristy tat: there are actually more clothes and jewelery shops now than there ever have been. and I for one like having a pret and a starbucks up there. it makes the high street much nicer and funnily enough on an average sunday the coffee shops in the lock are busier than starbucks anyway, so who's really losing?

I am really sad about the Hawley Arms though - that was an awesome pub and I'd been drinking there for a long time. I hope they do a decent job redoing it.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-02-10 04:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] crazymeandave.livejournal.com
whether the burnt area needed redevelopment is something i am certain would be disputed by certain people. and i'm sure the reasons for dispute would be both justifiable and reasonable...

what possible reason could there not be for taking advantage of an unfortunate "accident" and investing in the future by improving the local amenities; replacing any condemned buildings with modern "greener" developments and increasing the amount of housing in an area in which it is already exceptionally difficult to obtain domiciles?

i for one do not think those people whose hard work gentrifying, dividing and profiting from camden will allow such a golden opportunity to pass them by. especially not if their motive for this is that it's for the civic good.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-02-10 01:31 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] panzermensch101.livejournal.com
They were my exact thinkings.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-02-11 10:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 303factory.livejournal.com
I did stroke my beard when I heard about it..

September 2013

S M T W T F S
12 34567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags