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.