> 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 gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> On 24 Apr, 16:19, MIG doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:

>

>>>>>> On 24 Apr, 15:48, Mizter T gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>>>>>> On 24 Apr, 15:29, MIG doreenbird.co.uk> 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?