[HN Gopher] London's 850-year-old food markets to close
___________________________________________________________________
London's 850-year-old food markets to close
Author : kepler471
Score : 228 points
Date : 2024-11-27 21:36 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| cjs_ac wrote:
| > The decision to close the markets and offer traders
| compensation was made by the Corporation's Court of Common
| Council.
|
| > The Corporation will now have to file a Private Bill in
| Parliament as it seeks to absolve itself of the legal
| responsibility of running the markets.
|
| _The Corporation_ in this case is the Corporation of the City of
| London, which is the local government authority for the City of
| London, which is only the part of London that is within the walls
| of Roman Londinium. The Parliamentary Bill may very well not
| pass, in which case the Corporation may be in something of a
| pickle.
| orra wrote:
| Why meet your legal obligations if you have a chance of
| deleting the obligations instead? Absolute chancers.
| labster wrote:
| Why stop there? Why not revoke the City's charter altogether?
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| The City of London isn't legally reliant on a charter. It
| draws existence from 'Time Immemorial'.
|
| Specifically it exists because it existed before 1189
| zzbn00 wrote:
| This is a good and subtle point of law -- The City of
| London is a corporation "by prescription".
|
| But while it was created by neither statue nor royal
| charter, I doubt the parliament could not end it if it so
| decided....
| surfingdino wrote:
| That's why the City has the Remembrancer
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Remembrancer taking
| care of the City's business in the Parliament.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| The King-in-Parliament can abrogate common law.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| > The Parliamentary Bill may very well not pass, in which case
| the Corporation may be in something of a pickle.
|
| I think it's highly unlikely that it would fail.
| moomin wrote:
| True, but it would definitely be funny.
| walrus01 wrote:
| > the local government authority for the City of London, which
| is only the part of London that is within the walls of Roman
| Londinium
|
| Also known as the most efficient and high volume money
| laundering machine ever devised by man. Do a deep dive into
| russian oligarch money and the City of London, from reputable
| journalism sources, and you won't like what you find.
|
| https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/03/28/how-putins-oli...
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/14/nearly...
|
| https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/02/04/...
| qingcharles wrote:
| The City of London (aka the Square Mile) is literally a world
| unto itself. Even the Mayor of London is not the mayor of the
| City of London.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London
| cjrp wrote:
| Separate police force too.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| And in elections, corporations have a vote. Corporation
| votes vastly outnumber human resident votes.
| vidarh wrote:
| Though they're outnumbered in large part because almost
| nobody lives in City of London.
| vinay427 wrote:
| That seems incorrect. The mayor is the mayor of Greater
| London which includes the City of London, although the City
| also has a Lord Mayor, as London boroughs have elected or
| ceremonial mayors. In other words, the City has its own
| mayor in the sense that other parts of London have their
| own sub-governments, although with a few differences such
| as policing and city status.
|
| > The mayor is scrutinised by the London Assembly and,
| supported by their Mayoral Cabinet, directs the entirety of
| London, including the City of London (for which there is
| also the Lord Mayor of the City of London)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_London
|
| > In 1965 the county was abolished and replaced by Greater
| London, a two-tier administrative area governed by the
| Greater London Council, thirty-two London boroughs, and the
| City of London Corporation.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London
| qingcharles wrote:
| Appreciate the clarification!
| pjbster wrote:
| I recommend the book Treasure Islands by Nicholas Shaxson.
| It covers offshore tax havens and the central role played
| by the City in facilitating capital flight and tax
| avoidance. Chapter 12 is devoted entirely to the City of
| London Corporation.
|
| Haven't read it for a while but I do recall the word
| "strange" appearing a lot.
| surfingdino wrote:
| They even have their own mission to the EU so they don't
| have to rely on the UK government to discuss matters that
| matter to the City of London
| https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/supporting-
| businesses/global...
|
| Think of it as a vertical, focused embassy
| tim333 wrote:
| I'm not sure that much is down to the old City of London as
| opposed to London as a whole. Most of the property buying
| mentioned in those articles is in Kensington and Chelsea.
| Even the Guardian says City of London but when they quote the
| guy with quotation marks it's "40% of that money comes
| through London and overseas territories and crown
| dependencies".
|
| British papers tend to mix up City of London as in the old
| city and city of London as in the general financial services
| including Canary Wharf etc. Bit like how 'Wall Street'
| doesn't always mean that exact street.
| danans wrote:
| FTFY
|
| > The Parliamentary Bill may very well not pass, in which case
| the Corporation may be in something of a _pickled herring_.
| hi_hi wrote:
| This makes me deeply sad. I use to live near to the market on St
| Johns Street, which is a direct route to the Smithfield. There
| was once a burst water main that serviced a nearby hospital that
| caused St Johns Street to be closed down as the flood uncovered
| bones which needed to be excavated and investigated. They
| eventually were identified as cattle bones which were a few
| hundred years old, from when the road was nothing but dirt and
| would have hundreds of animals pass along it on the way to the
| market for sale and slaughter.
|
| It's also a beautiful and historic building and site.
|
| I'm not sure what led to the decision to close it, but I can only
| assume it was for commercial interests of some form, and will
| eventually be turned into souless apartments, and the surrounding
| businesses, bars, pubs and nightclubs will also fall into
| decline.
| paxys wrote:
| > The original market first traded in Lower Thames Street in the
| City in 1327, before moving to its current site in Poplar, east
| London, in 1982.
|
| So the "850 year old" food market is actually a 42 year old
| market, and will likely continue to operate from a different
| location as it has done many times in the past.
| cjs_ac wrote:
| The market as an institution is 850 years old; the building
| that currently houses that institution is 42 years old. The
| market is not a place; it is the activity in which people
| engage in that place.
| dgfitz wrote:
| And no laws or legislation have been passed or proposed to
| close down said institution, is that accurate?
| peteri wrote:
| As far as I'm aware they do need an act of parliment to
| close it down. The one to create the market on the current
| site is an Act of Parliament (The Metropolitan Meat and
| Poultry Market Act of 1860) which should protect the site
| from becoming anything but a place to provide Meat &
| Poultry
| dgfitz wrote:
| "It" meaning the market or the institution?
| ericjmorey wrote:
| They are in the process of absolving their legal obligation
| to continue operating the market.
| dgfitz wrote:
| So the market moved 40ish years ago, and now it has to
| move again, the institution is fine?
| bobthepanda wrote:
| No, if you read the article, the City of London is
| washing its hands of having to relocate the institution
| at all.
| hi_hi wrote:
| No, this was a bit confusing. I think this may have been
| talking about Billingsgate, the fish market. Smithfields is a
| meat market, and has been at that site in one form or another
| for hundreds of years.
|
| Edit, to help clarify as other comments also appear to get this
| wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smithfield,_London#Market
| justincormack wrote:
| Yes, the original fish market building is an events dpace now
| I think.
| __oh_es wrote:
| https://archive.is/eX3Q6
|
| Apparently the plans to build the new market have fallen
| through
| throwaway494932 wrote:
| > and will likely continue to operate from a different location
|
| > The decision to close the markets and offer traders
| compensation was made by the Corporation's Court of Common
| Council.
|
| It seems that they want to close the markets, not to move them
| walterbell wrote:
| Need a City quant PhD to invent a mathematical analog of Black-
| Scholes [1] for pricing and trading the irreplaceable value of
| culturally significant physical spaces to future generations.
| Then City-like [2] institutions can compete financially for
| ongoing preservation rights, rather than a one-time chop shop
| auction.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes_model
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London
| sdwr wrote:
| "Preserving the irreplaceable value of ..." works great as a
| personal motivation or a mission statement, but terribly as an
| explicit rule. It's the same problem as carbon offsets - if
| there's a formula for converting intangible values into cold
| hard cash, people will exploit the definition of the
| intangibles to make money.
| roughly wrote:
| This is largely because we've built a philosophy that eschews
| any concept of a collective or a people or a culture or a
| future.
| lobsterthief wrote:
| Not every country is like this
| contravariant wrote:
| People keep forgetting that money is just a set of rules
| we've created for ourselves and not a goal on its own.
| walterbell wrote:
| Which legal and financial instruments have defended the City
| of London itself from being auctioned for parts?
|
| Subsets of culture are preserved, packetized & traded daily.
| Even StubHub has a "food festival" category.
| metaphor wrote:
| Before learning that this[1] was a thing, I honestly would
| have interpreted your remark in passing as figurative
| rhetoric.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge_(Lake_Havas
| u_Cit...
| cactusfrog wrote:
| This is a gamblers ruin problem action.
| tempusalaria wrote:
| The reality is that these are not culturally significant
| institutions and most people in London don't care. Ordinary
| Londoners rarely use these markets, and they mostly sell to
| restaurants, and require major financial support.
|
| Not everything from the past is good. We don't still run coal
| power plants in London just to get that historic smog.
|
| They were already planning to move both markets way out of
| central London (to a place no-one but a local would ever go)
| this is just changing it to not providing a new site.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _The reality is that these are not culturally significant
| institutions and most people in London don't care. Ordinary
| Londoners rarely use these markets, and they mostly sell to
| restaurants_ [...]
|
| Just because most Londoners don't care doesn't make them
| unimportant. They can provide a useful 'infrastructure' role
| for allowing this specific sector to run more smoothly.
|
| There's a similar thing in Toronto, the Ontario Food
| Terminal, that allows various local businesses (restaurants,
| local grocers / veg stands, (neighbourhood) florists, _etc_ )
| buy directly from producers without having to go through a
| middle-man:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Food_Terminal
|
| There was some worry that the facility would be retired and
| the land (e.g.) used for housing, but there are no plans to
| get rid of or relocate it:
|
| * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-food-
| terminal...
|
| * https://farmtario.com/news/ontario-food-terminal-
| distributes...
|
| Given that Toronto is the largest city in Canada, it allows
| for a somewhat convenient location for producers to sell to a
| large amount of buyers in a concentrated space.
|
| > [...] _and require major financial support._
|
| Running a modern society requires major financial support.
| The question is: what are the benefits to society of the
| infrastructure in question? Are the vendors not charged rent?
| Are the buyers perhaps not charged a membership fee? At least
| when it comes to OpEx do annual fees not cover expenses? The
| above mentioned Ontario Food Terminal is self-sufficient from
| fees (perhaps the government helps out every so often with
| CapEx?).
| walterbell wrote:
| https://www.blogto.com/eat_drink/2007/10/inside_the_ontario
| _...
|
| _> The whole operation is overseen by the Ontario Food
| Terminal Board.. $8 million of expenses... with a revenue
| rate exceeding that by $1 million, the operation is
| profitable, self-sustaining and receives no government
| support or preferential treatment despite its status as an
| agency of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
| Rural Affairs.. Some of those that operate here are among
| the wealthiest families in Canada.. The thirty-year leases
| held by the most powerful grocers in the city are renewable
| in perpetuity, privileging a small number of family-owned
| businesses that have kept a tight hold on their terminal
| rights for over three generations. The business is so
| robust, and the leases are so sought after, that each one
| is estimated to be worth over a million dollars in annual
| economic returns._
| Earw0rm wrote:
| Mostly agree, Londoners go to Borough if they're rich or the
| many local farmer's markets on the weekend. You'd have to
| admit, the not providing a new site thing is kind of shoddy
| though?
| Yeul wrote:
| The reality is that the restaurant food is brought by trucks
| from warehouses. There are special companies that specialise
| in providing everything that a restaurant needs.
|
| Aside from Michelin star places chefs don't go around buying
| anything the whole ordering is highly automated.
| petesergeant wrote:
| > "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?
| shermantanktop wrote:
| Which many people call "Tesco's" for some reason. I had to read
| your comment twice to spot the issue.
| timthorn wrote:
| Because the name is a contraction of T. E. Stockwell and Jack
| Cohen.
| asveikau wrote:
| There is a tendency to make store names possessive even if
| they aren't.
| surfingdino wrote:
| What local fishmongers? Where I live in East London there are
| only a handful left. None exist anywhere near new residential
| developments.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| > "empowers traders to build a sustainable future in premises
| that align with their long-term business goals"
|
| After referencing my corporatese translation book, I believe this
| means "Traders can get fucked we have money to make."
| vr46 wrote:
| Super sad, have spent a long of time in the area from riding
| right through the middle of it and parking my motorbike under it,
| to wolfing Turkish lunches and drinking in the pubs (not on the
| same day, drink-driving mavens). It is a bit of anomaly in the
| modern London, hard to get to and surrounded by roads that aren't
| really fit for purpose anymore, but it's these incongruous spots
| that make things interesting. I remember the butcher on the main
| Farringdon Road just near the Charterhouse St junction, who was
| somewhat of a character, scoffing at my suggestion that he would
| even consider buying meat from Smithfield - literally around the
| corner - which confused and amused me at the same time.
|
| I note the haughty remarks of other commenters who are neither
| familiar with the area or the ability to read, and suggest they
| pay a virtual visit to the spots in question
| hi_hi wrote:
| My running route would take me through the market in the
| mornings, only a few hours after it had closed up. I loved the
| smell of meat, which others would find quite offensive.
|
| It's a lovely area, and home to one of my favourite
| restaurants, St Johns.
| vr46 wrote:
| Did you run through Buyers Walk right inside the building, or
| do you mean Grand Ave, the short and often slippery vehicular
| road that cut the building in half?
|
| Either are cool, although I like the image of you running
| through the actual market like Rocky Balboa in the meat
| locker or something
| hi_hi wrote:
| Yeah, Grand Ave I think, it was in the afternoons or
| evenings mostly, so everything was well cleaned up by then.
| No stopping to punch a meat carcass unfortunately :)
| piltdownman wrote:
| Not only is it home to St.John's as a restaurant, it is a
| geographical catalyst to a whole slow-food movement based on
| the food-markets proximity and the usage of offal and bone
| marrow by the gentleman and genius, Fergus Henderson.
|
| Bourdain was a great pal and admirer, describing him as 'the
| most influential chef of the last two decades'
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/aug/17/st-
| john...
| justincormack wrote:
| Not sure he buys from the market though.
| shermantanktop wrote:
| I worked literally around the corner from there some years ago.
| Watch "Slow Horses" and you'll see all those sights, including
| Barbican tube stop and its pedestrian bridge, Charterhouse
| square benches, the brutalist towers, my work's favorite little
| pub, etc.
| nothercastle wrote:
| Real estate developer looking to build build flats for Chinese
| and Russian investors. Gotta love the grift
| refulgentis wrote:
| Oh no, that'd be awful...but good news, I just looked into it,
| no China/Russia investors! It's a real estate developer working
| with the people to get a bunch of units built to ease a
| historic shortage. Huzzah!
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| There's a billion dollar price tag being punted around and
| you think the resulting development is going to be aimed at
| and priced to reduce a housing supply shortage? Are you by
| chance on the market to buy a bridge?
| nothercastle wrote:
| Trump tower 2.0 London Edition?
| refulgentis wrote:
| I know I'm supposed to say no, but...yes I do believe it.
|
| I have a proof, too long to be contained within the margins
| of this page, that when supply goes up, price goes down
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| Go for it. Econ 100 textbook bs about supply and demand
| are trivially dismissed by a casual examination of
| housing and rental prices in the US in gentrified areas.
| What happens when the real world intrudes on academic
| platitudes is rather straightforward: pricing for
| everything goes up and the folks who were struggling get
| pushed out. Nobody who couldn't afford housing in the
| market before the shift is served.
| refulgentis wrote:
| I'm more than open to reading _anything_ about that!
| Literally anything!
|
| Most respectfully and deferentially, I don't think "more
| things available makes price goes down" is a platitude or
| textbook or academic thing!
|
| I must confess, the fact this Fat Tony logic and not some
| theory invented in an academic textbook ivory-tower
| divorced-from-reality impoverished-intellectual safe
| haven is why I cannot provide a proof: the note about the
| margin was an attempt to inject some levity, via a
| reference to Fermat!
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| > I'm more than open to reading anything about that!
| Literally anything!
|
| Great! Start paying attention to real estate and rental
| prices in areas near "mixed use" development projects and
| urban multi-story housing construction, literally the
| projects that are billed by politicians as addressing
| housing shortages and you'll find my point bore out
| pretty plainly.
|
| > I don't think "more things available makes price goes
| down" is a platitude or textbook or academic thing!
|
| It isn't in the context of bulk commodities and raw
| inputs where producers compete solely on volume. Housing
| is not a volume market and no incentives exist for
| developers or property owners to make it one. See also:
| RealPage sued for enabling market collusion in
| residential rental rates:
| https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/23/feds-sue-
| software-c...
| refulgentis wrote:
| Ah okay, you made it up :)
| Sabinus wrote:
| Luxury apartments do reduce the housing shortage. Cashed up
| boomers can move out of the nice family home they've been
| living in since the kids left and upgrade/downsize.
|
| Building the high end and having people move up helps with
| the high cost of construction also.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| The general phenomenon is well known to those who study
| this kind of thing, but yep, building housing of any
| price helps reduce costs overall:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filtering_(housing)
| nothercastle wrote:
| Depends on if people live in it or buy as an investment
| and leave it vacant or air bb as often happens in London
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Not really since those people would otherwise some
| different existing property to do the same thing with.
| nothercastle wrote:
| I'm not going argue that that basic Econ does not
| indicate that this should help a bit with housing demand.
| The question is how much and is it really worth loosing a
| public institution for.
|
| The marginal utility for the general person of a public
| market seems higher than that of a couple extra housing
| units
| runako wrote:
| They're saying "thousands of new homes." If they can build
| that many homes for a billion dollars, that doesn't sound
| like its' all luxury housing.
| illwrks wrote:
| There is no way in hell anything built there will be for
| normal people. That area is on the doorstep of the City, with
| excellent connections, it's like the centre of a compass
| transport wise. When completed, you can bet it will be 2m+
| for a shoebox sized apartment, with yearly fees that would
| swallow any normal persons salary.
| Winblows11 wrote:
| Is there any Russian money going to UK/London anymore? Or any
| that wasn't frozen/sanctioned that hasn't already left.
|
| I know of trader who left London to work in Dubai to still take
| his Russian clients business, and apparently all Russian money
| is going there instead of London.
| teractiveodular wrote:
| No Russian money, no sirree. Fortunately there's still plenty
| of housing designed to appeal to Russian-speaking investors
| holding passports from Vanuatu, Cyprus or St Kitts and Nevis
| and fat investment trusts in the Cayman Islands.
| johnzim wrote:
| What a shame. On a few occasions my wife and I woke up at
| ridiculous o'clock and made our way down to Billingsgate market
| on the underground. We'd come back with fish and a big salmon in
| a black bin-bag, which I'd do a progressively less horrific job
| of filleting each time.
|
| Our reward would be a bacon/sausage and egg butty and a stiff cup
| of builder's tea.
|
| Good times
| astrosi wrote:
| Agreed, one of my great pleasures during COVID when I had
| terrible insomnia and couldn't sleep was to cycle down to
| Billingsgate in the morning and eat one of the fantastic bacon
| and scallop rolls from the cafe in the market. Definitely going
| to miss the place.
| walthamstow wrote:
| I had honestly made my peace with it moving to Dagenham. It
| makes sense for the Farringdon area, it makes sense for
| transport links, it even makes sense for the traders, who
| mostly live out that way. To close the existing markets
| without building a new one is cultural vandalism.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Cor blimey guv'nor, you'll never Adam and Eve what me and the
| missus used to do! We'd drag our bloomin' carcasses out of our
| pit at some ungodly hour - proper early doors, know what I
| mean? - and hop on the good ol' tube down to Billingsgate, we
| would!
|
| Bloody 'ell, you should've seen us, mate - prancing about like
| right proper toffs with our salmon wrapped up in a bin bag like
| some dodgy geezer's stolen goods! Me there, making a right
| pig's ear of the filleting at first - proper butchered it, I
| did! Though I got better, swear on me mum's life!
|
| But stone the crows, weren't it all worth it when we got to
| stuff our faces with a proper greasy banger and bacon sarnie?
| Proper heart attack on a plate, that was! And don't even get me
| started on that builder's tea - strong enough to put hairs on
| your chest, sunshine! Bleedin' lovely it was, mate. Absolutely
| bloody marvelous! God save the King and all that malarkey!
|
| Proper good times those were, innit? Makes me right emotional,
| it does. _wipes away tear with Union Jack handkerchief_
|
| ---
|
| I'm so glad we won our revolution against you guys.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| An old tradition is to be replaced with the current hot trend:
| selling condos as investment assets. But land speculation and
| development predates _everything_ in london.
| alexwasserman wrote:
| Statement 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 align with their desire for employment.
| hardlianotion wrote:
| Who doesn't love corporate bullshit?
| smartbit wrote:
| I love the journalist who puts these quotes at the end of the
| article. Great journalism.
| sosborn wrote:
| Journalists take glee in letting the fools expose
| themselves.
| randomcarbloke wrote:
| the ruling comes from up-on-high the mayor of London who does
| have some oversight over the city of london, and the transit
| of traders that utilise the market.
|
| Gotta hit those eco numbers.
| jayelbe wrote:
| The Mayor of London doesn't have any power over the City of
| London Corporation. They are completely separate
| authorities.
|
| The Corporation is essentially a unitary/borough-tier local
| authority, overseeing the "square mile" centre of the city,
| and has a council of elected councilmen. It provides
| housing, education, social services, street cleaning,
| markets etc for a small area of central London, and has
| existed since time immemorial.
|
| The Mayor's remit, which has only existed since the year
| 2000, covers the whole 600-square mile area of Greater
| London, and provides strategic services like transport,
| strategic planning, fire and rescue, and the metropolitan
| police.
|
| The Mayor of London wouldn't have had any involvement in
| this at all.
| wbl wrote:
| Not to be confused with the Lord Mayor of London.
| asveikau wrote:
| I think a lot of people who don't know much about London
| are surprised that the City of London is quite small and
| not what people generally mean when they say "London".
| Angostura wrote:
| AKA "The Square Mile"
| dghf wrote:
| Fun fact, the City of London is the last local authority
| in the UK where businesses as well residents get to vote.
| Businesses can appoint one voter for every five employees
| up to 50, and then one per 50 employees after that.
| rvense wrote:
| Do you know how that adds up, what the ratio of business
| votes to residential votes is? I imagine many more people
| work in the city than live there.
| blibble wrote:
| there are more business votes, but practically very few
| people actually use their business vote
|
| as a business voter I went to my ward's annual meeting
| (wardmote), they were surprised to see a non-resident
| there
|
| nearly the entire thing was about issues residents care
| about (late noise, cycle paths, petty crime, etc)
|
| that and their amazing new plans for
| billingsgate/smithfield
|
| the other are a couple of other things to remember about
| City ward lists: 1. employers have no
| involvement other than picking their voters -- it's up to
| the individuals 2. due to the allocation rules:
| micro-businesses have most of the votes, so small food
| vendors have significantly more votes than all the large
| businesses
| roughly wrote:
| Christ, yeah - I came here to post the same quote. What kind of
| horrific shit does one need to go through in life to become
| capable of uttering that kind of horseshit with a straight
| face?
| lazide wrote:
| If you knew, you'd likely never be able to leave the house.
| Or could never go home again.
| gyomu wrote:
| Maybe we shouldn't be casting stones from the HN glass house,
| because literally every other startup here has a mission
| statement that sounds as ridiculous as this
| boingo wrote:
| The C-Suite coming up with this garbage is in every
| industry. You notice it more with tech companies on HN
| because that's the industry we usually focus on
| seizethecheese wrote:
| Arguably, startups should have absurd mission statements,
| while managers of the city of London should be more sober.
| dylan604 wrote:
| A sober Englishman? Is there such a thing?
| n4r9 wrote:
| Bit unfair. Plenty of sober Englishman. During the week,
| anyway. Well, Monday to Thursday. Before midday, at
| least.
| herpdyderp wrote:
| I wish they didn't, I have such a hard time figuring out
| what any of them actually do.
| dylan604 wrote:
| That's the great thing with such an ambiguous statement
| is that they can pivot at any point without having say
| they are pivoting. They are in a position to do what ever
| it is that someone inquires
| nf3 wrote:
| Go to business school?
| n4r9 wrote:
| Wall Street eat your heart out; London has a proud and
| lengthy history of producing corporate psychopaths.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| I imagine the people behind this furiously knocking one off
| while watching the "Greed is good" bit from Wallstreet on
| loop.
| acadapter wrote:
| The things people say in the era where comment fields have
| been removed from news websites (in the name of "avoiding
| misinformation")...
| vegetablepotpie wrote:
| I'm not sure the comment fields are considered by media
| organizations or public figures... like, at all. I remember
| talking to a journalist about a series they were working
| on, they said the feedback they've gotten has been
| overwhelmingly positive and no one had anything bad to say
| about it. The comments on their articles were absolutely
| negative and vitriolic. I don't think anyone with a shred
| of influence or responsibility in western society reads
| them.
| asveikau wrote:
| To be fair, a lot of comment sections are garbage, and
| they can be trolled and brigaded.
| hyeonwho4 wrote:
| For an article like this, the negative comments would be
| aimed at the people in the article, not the journalist.
| So the article can be a great (muckraking) article, and
| the comments might also be vitriolic, and everything is
| good if the rage is well-aimed.
| Hilift wrote:
| They probably reminded them they would save PS12.50 per day
| if they no longer had to drive around there.
|
| "The ULEZ charge is PS12.50 per day for most vehicles,
| including cars, motorcycles, and vans up to 3.5 tonnes. The
| charge is PS100 per day for heavier vehicles"
| Symbiote wrote:
| This is completely incorrect, please don't spread culture-
| war lies on HN.
|
| The PS12.50 charge is for old, polluting cars.
|
| Petrol cars made since around 2005 are exempt, and diesel
| cars since 2015. Vans from ~2006 and 2016 respectively.
|
| https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-
| zone/car...
| richardjennings wrote:
| > The PS12.50 charge is for old, polluting cars.
|
| It can apply to cars with a PS0 VED that were built less
| than 10 years ago.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| A 2015 car is not old in a world of reduce, reuse,
| recycle.
| fecal_henge wrote:
| So reuse them with the caveat you have to pay a little
| when you drive in a certain 0.6% of the uk.
| FredPret wrote:
| The most economically valuable 0.6%
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| A statement that requires context/astriks is not
| "completely incorrect"
|
| Please stop trying to act like a moderator here, it's
| against HN guidelines.
| ziddoap wrote:
| The irony of your comment is palpable.
| roughly wrote:
| It always amuses me when people respond with some
| completely unrelated personal hobby horse like this.
| There's nothing at all in my comment in any way related to
| driving or congestion fees, not even if you squint a whole
| lot, and no way in which this comment ties into anything at
| all I said, even if I squint a whole lot.
| fakedang wrote:
| I mean, other countries would kill to preserve such long-
| lasting heritage, especially one that's in active use and
| very much a part of the city.
|
| But the English of late are exceptionally good at bending
| over and showing their rear-ends to new foreign overlords for
| paltry sums of coin.
| lpribis wrote:
| After translation via https://www.bullshitremover.com/:
|
| > "Positive new chapter" = "We're closing this place down".
|
| > "Empower traders" = "Kick them out".
|
| > "Sustainable future" = "Nowhere to go".
|
| > "Financial support and guidance" = "Good luck, you're on your
| own".
|
| > "Unlock the huge potential" = "We'll figure something out,
| maybe".
| BehindBlueEyes wrote:
| no no > "Unlock the huge potential" = "We have big money with
| big self serving plans coming in."
|
| tldr from bsremover too:
|
| Smithfield: Big meat market, been there since 1860s.
| Billingsgate: Huge fish market, been there since 1327, now
| moving to make way for homes.
|
| So a real state take over, pretty much?
| surfingdino wrote:
| Yes. Canary Wharf is being transformed from a purely
| financial district into a mixed business-residential
| district. They want to move noisy and smelly businesses
| away from the offices and apartments.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Smithfield Market and the City of London are nowhere near
| Canary Wharf
| CPLX wrote:
| Billingsgate Market, subject of this article, is on
| Canary Wharf.
| snypher wrote:
| It's Smithfield and Billingsgate.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| If I'm reading the article correctly they need parliament's
| permission ("private bill").
|
| Write your MP.
| tomcam wrote:
| We had to destroy the village to save it
| https://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2015/02/it-became-necessary-...
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| 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_ , meaning people
| quickly reorient their productive capacity to where it's most
| useful.
|
| Well, this would all be true if the UK wasn't going through a
| lost generation economically. Serves them right for Brexit!
| mulmen wrote:
| > 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.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Our horror to the capitalist economic calculus of this
| world does absolutly nothing to make the world less
| ruthlessly capitalistic. In fact, we've seen that all
| attempts to overthrow capitalism (i.e. communism or SJW
| liberal wokism) have done nothing but entrench and
| strengthen capitalism and indeed, strengthen its uniquely
| worst parts of it.
|
| You should look into Mark Fischer as an example of someone
| who tried to see just how evil it is in its full glory.
| Look at what happened to him afterwards. That's what
| happens when you think about it too much.
|
| Unironically, swim with the fish or you'll get eaten by the
| sharks.
| chris_wot wrote:
| And a lot of them are suffering who definitely could have
| voted, but decided not to.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| https://chainsawsuit.krisstraub.com/20171207.shtml
| chris_wot wrote:
| I came here to specifically comment on this statement. I've
| never heard some much spin in one statement.
| darksfall wrote:
| The whole area is full of so many personal memories; having
| lived, worked, and partied in & around Smithfield Market.
|
| I live in Portugal now, but those times are so vivid. Whenever I
| was at the office very early, or out parting late enough, the
| sight of the market workers there was sobering and down to earth.
|
| To think of it not being there, then being replaced with
| something nondescript, is shameful.
|
| In and around is Farringdon Station, one of the original Tube
| stations, the bars & pubs (Ye Olde Mitre, The Hope, Fox & Anchor,
| Smiths of Smithfield, etc.) and clubs (including Fabric).
|
| I was working in the offices above the markets, for a nascent IT
| company, and believe me they weren't luxurious offices but it was
| exciting.
|
| Good times, and soon only memories.
| Daub wrote:
| What the betting that they will turn in to a hive of chi-chi
| coffe shops, gift shops and bespoke offices, like they did to
| Coventry Garden and borough market. Since the early 80s London
| has been on a death dive, with real life London being replaced by
| a plastic equivalent.
| tim333 wrote:
| Probably but Covent Garden and Borough Market are pretty
| popular.
|
| My friend had a pub next to Smithfield so I used to be down
| there a lot but the meat market is mostly slabs of meat and
| associated body parts, diesel trucks and closed to the public.
| It seemed a little out of place in gentrified modern London.
| zephod wrote:
| We spent our first year as a startup hacking on laptops in the
| attic of Smithfields, along with a dozen other startups. No idea
| if Innovation Warehouse is still up there[1]. If you arrived at
| work early enough they'd still be hosing the blood off the tarmac
| from the early morning market.
|
| Most startups moved out to WeWork as soon as they could turn a
| profit. But hey, it was cheap office space in super-central
| London.
|
| [1] https://www.facebook.com/innovationwarehouselondon/
| ngcazz wrote:
| Guess I better get cross out my "buy fresh meat from Smithfield
| at 6am" item from my bucket list soon...
| kibwen wrote:
| If you're in Boston, the open-air Haymarket operates downtown on
| Fridays and Saturdays, and more-or-less has been doing so
| continuously for 200+ years now.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_(Boston) Even if you're
| not near downtown, the prices make it worth the trip (bring cash
| and bags).
| teractiveodular wrote:
| It's interesting to see how cities are handling the increasing
| bifurcation of wholesale and retail markets.
|
| In Sydney, the current Fish Market is a grotty assemblage of
| small warehouses in what's now a prime waterfront location of the
| city that has become an unlikely tourist attraction, but still
| serves the wholesale market. They're building a new one right
| next to it that looks far nicer, leaves tourists much less at
| risk of getting impaled by a speeding forklift, and will keep the
| wholesalers around for at least some time since they've been
| promised fixed rents for the next X years:
| https://newsydneyfishmarket.insw.com/insw/new-sydney-fish-ma...
|
| All other markets, though, have been shipped off to a massive
| complex in the industrial suburbs, designed for wholesalers with
| easy truck access, and with the arguable exception of Paddy's
| Markets (which mostly sells junk to tourists) there's not a
| single proper consumer retail market in the entire city.
| Meanwhile, over in Melbourne, there's a whole slew of them (Queen
| Vic, Prahran, Footscray etc) that all appear to be thriving.
| Rodeoclash wrote:
| Yes, although it sounds like Preston has / is / will be at risk
| from developers that own the land and want to build apartments.
|
| The thing about markets like this is that once they're gone,
| you can never get them back again. My home town, Wellington,
| shut down the markets at some point in the distant past and
| have been trying to restart them in the more recent past to
| little success (think a bunch of cars parked in an uncovered
| car park trying to sell vegetables).
| jaza wrote:
| Indeed. The central Sydney locality of Haymarket is that in
| name only. Same for Wheat Road and The Goods Line. Wholesale
| fresh produce has all been in Homebush / Flemington for years
| now, barely accessible to anyone without a semi-trailer and the
| willingness to purchase a truckload. Shipping also long gone
| from the central spots of Walsh Bay / Barangaroo / Darling
| Harbour, all now relegated to Container City aka Port Botany.
| sfjailbird wrote:
| If anyone is looking for a good read, there's a great book
| called _Arcadia_ , which revolves around this trend of
| traditional city food markets being supplanted by upscale
| hipster traps.
| jahewson wrote:
| > Work has already begun on turning this site into a new cultural
| and commercial hub, which includes the new London Museum.
|
| Yes, come to the museum to learn about all this culture we used
| to have, such as an awesome market.
| moomin wrote:
| Smithfield features quite heavily in "Great Expectations".
| Dickens hated the place. He subscribed to a theory that a city
| needed good circulation, which meant that things that obstructed
| traffic were considered bad, and Smithfield was hugely stationary
| and snarked up everything around it.
|
| Of course, he had no concept of the circulation of money as being
| interesting and important to the "health" of a city, but most
| economists since Marx do.
| slimebot80 wrote:
| Still time to prevent this. Fingers crossed.
| zeristor wrote:
| Farringdon station happens to be where the Thameslink line from
| North to South London, intersects with the East to West Elizabeth
| line.
|
| As the Elizabeth Line was being finished I realised that the
| whole area around there is going to change hugely.
|
| Mind you if that's the case the station would need to be rebuilt.
|
| The article discusses converting the market to a social space to
| make the most of the new Museum of London.
|
| Am I missing something, I would have thought the new Museum of
| London would open as the Old one closed, not a year or so later.
|
| And how on Earth is a new market in Dagenham spec'd as costing a
| large fraction of a billion quid?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Literally living out becoming an open air museum.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| When 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.
| cjrp wrote:
| It also feels like a result of housing/property values being so
| high. When a block of flats can sell for PS100m (and bring in
| council tax money), why keep markets or build libraries. It's
| sad.
| SilverBirch wrote:
| 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.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| The same thing happened to Covent Garden in the 1970s - the
| original site was closed, a new one was opened that over time
| became very evidently much better suited to being a large scale
| wholesale fruit and vegetable market.
|
| Everybody and their uncle bitched and moaned about it, but I
| think there are few people today who would argue that London
| would be better off if Covent Garden was still the central
| produce market rather than the touristic hellhole it is today.
| walthamstow wrote:
| But they're not opening a new one! They're closing the current
| one and telling the traders to fuck off somewhere else
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Yo E17 my homie!
|
| Think of it as encouragement to the traders to find their own
| new location :)
| fractallyte wrote:
| Not with the traffic congestion hell that is E17...
| bearbin wrote:
| The New Covent Garden Market itself is currently in the middle
| of a multi-decade redevelopment, they've slightly reduced the
| footprint and sold off some land for development, and the
| remains (still a massive area) is being _very_ slowly converted
| into a more modern design - sadly not really a market where you
| can actually go on foot to buy things, but a co-location area
| for lots of wholesalers to warehouse and deliver from.
| DidYaWipe wrote:
| Another fascinating, vibrant part of a city's history destroyed
| and replaced with generic glossy bullshit.
| Midnight1938 wrote:
| Slightly amusing how a lot of stuff like this thats happening to
| uk is things they have done to others in the past
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| A lot of the problems we are dealing with now are definitely
| self inflicted.
| gadders wrote:
| Defeated them militarily and conquered their country?
| optimalsolver wrote:
| As the Commonwealth made it easier for the people of those
| lands to immigrate into the UK, they'd now consider it worth
| it.
| Tade0 wrote:
| This is why I'm distrustful towards any initiatives aiming to
| make a city "more liveable for humans".
|
| First they entice you with a vision of a place where everything
| is within walking distance, then they do this.
| lbreakjai wrote:
| What's more liveable and walking-distance than a market within
| walking distance from where you live? This has nothing to do
| with urbanism, this is purely capitalistic efficiency.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Please read my comment again.
|
| I'm complaining about places to go within walking distance,
| such as this market, being removed despite declarations from
| the city authorities that they're making the place more
| liveable.
| SilverBirch wrote:
| This isn't the type of market you pop down to and buy your
| weekly shop, this is wholesale. It's largely where restaurants
| will go to to buy their meat for the day/week. Smithfields
| opens at midnight and _closes_ at 7am. You can walk past at
| mid-day and it 's just a fairly run-down part of london in the
| middle of other much nicer parts of London. This is nothing to
| do with walkable cities.
| walthamstow wrote:
| If this market was in Stoke or Hull there would be a national
| outcry. Farage would be all over it like a rash.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/cou...
|
| https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-new...
| masfuerte wrote:
| The landlord of the meat and fish market in Birmingham has
| submitted a planning application to replace it with housing. I
| haven't seen Farage or anyone else express much interest.
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czjy81w3ev0o
| gadders wrote:
| I've heard there is a cafe in Billingsgate you can go to first
| thing in the morning and get a scallop and bacon roll for PS8. I
| need to try it soon.
| petargyurov wrote:
| > a scallop and bacon roll
|
| > PS8
|
| Bloody hell...
| gadders wrote:
| Looks like it was only a fiver in 2020:
| https://thefoodconnoisseur.co.uk/breakfast/billingsgate-
| cafe...
|
| It's not Greggs prices, but I'd like to try it at least once.
| It looks like it closes at 8am though.
| lambdaone wrote:
| A tragic and short-sighted act of cultural vandalism for short-
| term profit. In other words, business as usual.
| tim333 wrote:
| The NYT has a much more detailed article on this.
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/28/world/europe/london-smith...
| or https://archive.ph/dz5zY
|
| Including that William (Braveheart) Wallace was hung, drawn and
| quartered there in 1305.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| Meat Market... indeed!
| renewiltord wrote:
| Entertaining. Everyone wants more housing but no one wants to
| give up anything for more housing. I love it! Haha, imagine
| making one's bed a certain way, lying in it, then complaining
| they didn't like it and then making it the same way the next
| night. Pure magic.
|
| In America, we do this by running our ports artisanally.
| Residents of this nation pay billions for the privilege of 50,000
| manually handling containers in the old way: refined, traditional
| and not by soulless automation. England would do well to learn
| from our dedication to the past.
| kragen wrote:
| Are these Smithfield and Billingsgate wet markets the last wet
| markets to close in the wake of the covid pandemic?
| DrBazza wrote:
| The Corporation of London own the land Billingsgate is on.
| They've been looking to redevelop this for over a decade since
| the land's value is now magnitudes more than when it was built
| because of Canary Wharf _and_ the new Canary Wharf Crossrail
| station.
|
| It's prime real estate land, possibly the best plot in London
| right now. And so is Smithfield, or at least the land that Museum
| of London is on, and they're moving to Smithfield. For a while I
| expect.
|
| The whole thing is just short term profiteering over tradition
| and a rich history. Some things need preserving.
| slibhb wrote:
| > The whole thing is just short term profiteering over
| tradition and a rich history. Some things need preserving.
|
| Some things do. But is this one of them? The article doesn't
| make a great case.
|
| And building something new here won't necessarily be short-
| term.
| petercooper wrote:
| Smithfield absolutely is. There's a large (and surprisingly
| atmospheric) underground car park under it and the Farringdon
| Elizabeth Line station has an entrance right there now too.
| Smithfield is one of my favourite "drive into London and park
| without headaches" spots when Stratford's hotels are sold out.
| Neil44 wrote:
| I'm sure they'll name the new luxury apartments nice names,
| that nod to the former history of the site.
| dmix wrote:
| > Some things need preserving.
|
| Mostly because modern cities only allow the most boring, safe
| things to be built. Less people would be whining if it was
| possible to build a thriving market like this elsewhere in the
| city, where it still makes economic sense. But there's probably
| a billion rules and therefore capital/political requirements
| where it's impossible. So the only contenders will be a bigco
| shopping market on the bottom floor of a condo building.
|
| Open, chaotic markets with multiple small vendors is too risky
| (and too much fun) for modern top-down urban planners... so
| people see the only solution is to cling on to the dwindling
| past when that was still possible.
| Joaomcabrita wrote:
| Sad. Why not revamp, renew and reinvent rather than close it
| down.
|
| Loads of examples of markets turned to food and culture markets
| both in London and other places.. Lisbon, Stockholm, etc.. and
| they are thriving!
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| It's sad for the traders being evicted but the fact is that these
| markets have been dwindling in importance for decades.
| Restaurants and shops don't get up before dawn to go to market to
| see what's fresh, they order from wholesalers online or direct
| from the farms and get food delivered (often with fresh veg from
| the same supplier)
|
| Smithfield's in particular is better as a new home for the London
| museum and probably more office/retail buildings than a poorly
| located commercial meat market
| HenryBemis wrote:
| "it's all about the money now"
|
| Newsflash: It's always been about the money. I first went to
| Canary Wharf in 1995, a friend bought a small house there and it
| was a shitty place. I visited him again in 2001 and the place had
| changed "a lot". I ended up living in the same area for a few
| years around 2017, and CW has nothing from 'that' time. Back then
| you could buy land/a house at a (considering today's prices)
| 'cheap'. Now every square meter is worth plenty of Latinum. So
| yeah, this part (market) could be 'repurposed for luxury offices,
| luxury homes, etc and whoever owns it can have a x20 return, so
| why not..?
| samaltmanfried wrote:
| I just searched for modern images of Smithfield market, and what
| on earth is that ghastly awning they've bolted onto that
| beautiful historic (presumably Victorian) facade?
|
| For example:
| https://dm1igrl0afsra.cloudfront.net/AcuCustom/Sitename/DAM/...
| SilverBirch wrote:
| I 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 anymore, and while you can
| preserve the buildings you can't preserve a set of businesses
| that look sillier and sillier by the day. At some point you have
| to ask what you're actually preserving, because "Smithfields
| Market (rebuilt in Dagenham in 2025)" isn't really that
| historical.
| frosting1337 wrote:
| Except the article states the move to Dagenham has been
| "dropped".
| SilverBirch wrote:
| That's what I'm saying, if you wanted to preserve it,
| preserve it where it is. If you're preserving it by moving it
| to east london... you're not really preserving it. There are
| plenty of distribution centres in east london already. So
| it's not really a loss to give up on the Dagenham plan.
| mgaunard wrote:
| 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.
| cm2187 wrote:
| 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.
| ofou wrote:
| From 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 PS1.3bn. As of March
| 2016, it had net assets of PS2.3bn.[52] The fund collects money
| made from the corporation's property and investment earnings.[53]
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| PS2bn 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 PS1bn purpose-built
| site in Dagenham, however this was dropped earlier this month
| over cost concerns as the council had already spent PS308m
| 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, PS1bn
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-28 23:00 UTC)