|
|
|
|
|
by tempusalaria
567 days ago
|
|
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. |
|
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?).