Can you explain why that is? Most of us gave up doing that ages ago…..

the setts around the edge o fthe market are from the 80s. They’re ugly. The central area is basially as it has been since 1904 or so. If Greenwich hospital simply regrouted the cobbles – which haven’t been touced ni 20 years – and put new setts around the edge, you’d be fine.

The older buildings are here:

http://www.thegreenwichphantom.co.uk/2008/10/hidden-victim-or-good-riddance.html

You owe it to yourself to look at those plans very carefully. Also, check out the height of the hotel, vs the joseph Kay buildings.

My understanding is that the cobbles, as they are now, were only re-laid in 1984? Losing them is the part of the plans that troubles me most but I’m not sure they should be saved on the basis of heritage when they’re only 25 years old. And the argument on accessibility for wheelchairs etc. seems pretty hard to dispute.

As for the roof, whether it’s 10 or 100 years old has little or no aesthetic merit so I certainly won’t be sad to see that go. The same goes for most of the buildings that surround the market. I must admit though I haven’t been down there with a copy of the plans to confirm which ones are going and if there are any Victorian buildings to be demolished I’d appreciate a pointer on which ones they are.

To my mind, the market is made by the contents, not the surroundings. Aside from the cobbles there is very little of beauty in the fabric of the buildings to get emotional about. As long as it retains the hustle and bustle and mix of stalls, I’m pretty confident it’ll remain a great place to visit.

Oh and Andrew, I fully understand that you didn’t explicitly say that the Hospital described the plans as Bluewater-like. But the way the first sentence is constructed – “The charity which owns most of central Greenwich is seeking planning permission to demolish the town’s historic market and replace it with a “Bluewater-like” precinct.” – makes it very easy to read it that way doesn’t it?

Of that perhaps a half to two thirds of this additional rent would come from the hotel, leaving £1-1.5 million of additional rents required from the market and shops. This looks a little heroic to me.

A key objection to the plans, or rather the consultation, is that they imply that only recent fabric will be destroyed. There seems to be an agenda to downplay or obscure the removal of old buildings, notably the stables and another building on Durnford Street. Plus the floor.

Personally I like the new buildings (although the main block is a storey too high) – but removing all those elements that give the market texture and resonance will make the place feel bland and suburban – just like Bluewater.

And £29m? is that correct? How much money will they have to suck out of stallholders, shops or tourists to make the figures stack up?

The cobbles and some of the buildings to be demolished are Victorian. As I said in my original piece on this subject, the cobbles and roof, which hides the 50s buildings, present a powerful heritage ensemble, in keeping with the heritage buildings at either end of the market and the other heritage buildings in central Greenwich. The new scheme will sweep that away and should not under any definition be a candidate for “heritage” Lottery funding.

You’re misreading the Standard headline – it certainly didn’t say that the Hospital had described the scheme as Bluewater-like. It is, though – strikingly so – and we have the pictures to prove it.

Please can you clarify exactly what part of the development will destroy part of Greenwich’s heritage. My understanding is that pretty much all of the structures being destroyed (buildings, canopy, cobbles) are comparatively new and certainly not part of the overall cultural heritage for which Greenwich is famous.

I also think it’s a bit of a stretch to assume that a request for Lottery funding automatically means the scheme is in financial difficulties. Surely it’s par for the course these days that any scheme with even the remotest chance of getting funding will at least ask the question?

Oh and finally, your recent article in the Standard was very deliberately misleading wasn’t it? The clear attempt to imply that Greenwich Hospital had claimed they were modelling the new market on Bluewater (including in the headline of the article) when the quote was from a critic of the scheme was very disappointing. Unfortunately, it worked a treat as all the commenters on the website clearly didn’t read the article properly and fell for it hook, line and sinker. I’ve come to expect better of you than that frankly.