What's the problem with Billingsgate? It's already outside the center in dodgy tower hamlets.
And it's depended on by all the fine food fish restaurants, including all the sushi ones.
London's 850-year-old food markets to close
201–210 of 300 posts
Re: London's 850-year-old food markets to close
#202When money is all that matters, it makes sense (to first order) to push out everything that seems to lose money and is purely cultural. This is the machine winning. To second order(s) and above, erasing culture reduces the desire of folks to live and prosper in the first place.
Honestly, come around to our neck of the woods and explain to a generation of 20 year olds who grew up in semi-detatched houses that they'll never buy a house in their lifetime because we chose not to build anything because we'd rather honor the dead.
Re: London's 850-year-old food markets to close
#203From the City of London wiki:
In December 2012, following criticism that it was insufficiently transparent about its finances, the City of London Corporation revealed that its "City's Cash" account – an endowment fund built up over the past 800 years that it says is used "for the benefit of London as a whole"[51] – holds more than £1.3bn. As of March 2016, it had net assets of £2.3bn.[52] The fund collects money made from the corporation's property and investment earnings.[53]
Re: London's 850-year-old food markets to close
#204What's the problem with Billingsgate? It's already outside the center in dodgy tower hamlets. And it's depended on by all the fine food fish restaurants, including all the sushi ones.
Not that dodgy. It’s right against canary wharf. All the areas immediately around canary wharf are being redeveloped into housing/office/retail buildings, the market is currently surrounded with construction sites.
Re: London's 850-year-old food markets to close
#205Statement from the City of London Corporation which is closing them down: > Chris Hayward, policy chairman of the City of London Corporation, said the > decision represented a "positive new chapter" for the markets as it "empowers > traders to build a sustainable future in premises that align with their > long-term business goals". This is a great statement. Like firing people to free them up to find jobs that better…
Re: London's 850-year-old food markets to close
#206I walk past/through Smithfields regularly. It's... nice? Ok it's not nice, it' uniquely London but it's just a pretty run down area in the middle of much nicer areas. But the plan was never to keep it, the plan was to knock it down and tell the people who had been working there to go work in Dagenham. So in my view this is no difference. That area of London just doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a meat market any…
Except the article states the move to Dagenham has been "dropped".
Re: London's 850-year-old food markets to close
#207From the City of London wiki: In December 2012, following criticism that it was insufficiently transparent about its finances, the City of London Corporation revealed that its "City's Cash" account – an endowment fund built up over the past 800 years that it says is used "for the benefit of London as a whole"[51] – holds more than £1.3bn. As of March 2016, it had net assets of £2.3bn.[52] The fund collects money made…
£2bn actually doesn't sound that enormous for this sort of organisation. Especially since...
> Initially the Corporation had planned to move both markets as well as New Spitalfields in Leyton to a £1bn purpose-built site in Dagenham, however this was dropped earlier this month over cost concerns as the council had already spent £308m purchasing and remediating the site in Dagenham.
They were going to spend half their entire endowment on this! And, regardless of whether you have the money to spare, £1bn is an absolutely colossal amount to spend on a market (even a large and very historic one). It just makes no financial sense at all.
Re: London's 850-year-old food markets to close
#208Statement from the City of London Corporation which is closing them down: > Chris Hayward, policy chairman of the City of London Corporation, said the > decision represented a "positive new chapter" for the markets as it "empowers > traders to build a sustainable future in premises that align with their > long-term business goals". This is a great statement. Like firing people to free them up to find jobs that better…
I came here to specifically comment on this statement. I've never heard some much spin in one statement.
Re: London's 850-year-old food markets to close
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reality is that almost no one makes any good money in the food industry. For a lot of people in that industry, if they tried to find jobs that better aligned with their skills (except in food), they'd likely be better off. A lot of people take jobs in terrible places and get complacent, maybe far too complacent. A healthy economy is one where money, people, skills, and intellectual property has high velocity , me…
> A healthy economy is one where money, people, skills, and intellectual property has high velocity, meaning people quickly reorient their productive capacity to where it's most useful. Everyone is an interchangeable cog! > Serves them right for Brexit! Brexit wasn’t a unanimous vote. There are people suffering under the Brexit decision that couldn’t vote at the time.
And a lot of them are suffering who definitely could have voted, but decided not to.
Re: London's 850-year-old food markets to close
#210> "It means there’s no fish market for London, which would mean the populace of London would have to resort to using local fishmongers" I mean, or Tesco?
Which many people call “Tesco’s” for some reason. I had to read your comment twice to spot the issue.
There is a tendency to make store names possessive even if they aren't.
I usually hear about this in the US, I can't recall a lot of UK examples, but I think we have it here.