Camden New Journal-letters-homes

Publications by New Journal Enterprises

Home

Archive

Competition

Camden New Journal - LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published: 26 April 2007

Homes could still be restored

• THE planning situation at King’s Cross may be complicated, as Judith Martin states, but her excellent letter has clarity and veracity (A lot less greed would have seen better social housing, April 19).
Stanley and Culross buildings should be restored to house prospective tenants on Camden’s burgeoning waiting list.
That policy should have been obvious, as restoration would provide homes and conserve industrial dwellings that are, intrinsically, good of their type.
Essentially, this course of action would be practical and not a prime case of preserving a slice of Victorian housing in aspic.
It appears that Argent wishes to create a self-conscious, derivative café society, bland and sanitised, a developer’s conceit.
London’s development, especially restoration, should not relentlessly be about luxury accommodation for the latté and Chardonnay classes to the inevitable exclusion of those who profess a more modest existence.
Camden Council should have taken the commonsensical, long-term view that Stanley and Culross buildings should remain to serve an entirely useful purpose.
Is there still time?
If it means, as Judith Martin graphically states, “old-fashioned, unzappy social housing in the middle of Argent’s sexy new development”, so be it.
GEOFFREY TUFFS
Barbican, EC2

Send your letters to: The Letters Editor, Camden New Journal, 40 Camden Road, London, NW1 9DR or email to letters@camdennewjournal.co.uk. The deadline for letters is midday Tuesday. The editor regrets that anonymous letters cannot be published, although names and addresses can be withheld. Please include a full name, postal address and telephone number. Letters may be edited for reasons of space.

Comment on this article.
(You must supply your full name and email address for your comment to be published)

Name:

Email:

Comment: