|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 2, 2006 8:17:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Aug 3, 2006 0:48:54 GMT
At first I though you'd said "conservatism" not conservation, but I blame that on my conjunctivitis. I thought the article was excellent, and certainly won't be visiting Chester any time soon. After your description, the 24 hours of flight time and then a grotty train ride doesn't seem quite worth it. I, too, have been to York and walked atop the wall and you're right in that that city gets it right. It's a thorny issue, though, and I suppose many Chester residents would argue that the chain stores are needed to bring in the money. Still a shame, though. I would take issue with your dig at Glasgow,HStorm; I reckon it's a very beautiful place, take the Gorbals (please) - but then I am biased  |
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Aug 3, 2006 9:54:12 GMT
It's a thorny issue, though, and I suppose many Chester residents would argue that the chain stores are needed to bring in the money. Understand, the article isn't a travelogue for slagging off Chester, it's just raising the point that conservation shouldn't be superficial. I don't have a problem with chain stores setting up branches in Tudor Houses, it just feels wrong when almost an entire town is composed of them. Hey, don't forget Easterhouse, Nitshill and Kinning Park, those Weegie bastions of urban beauty... Got a rating for the article, by the way? (Not that it's compulsory.) |
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Aug 3, 2006 21:20:11 GMT
Okay, I'll give you Easterhouse et al. I think I'd scrubbed those areas from my mind. It's not all Charles Rennie Macintosh and Sand-blasted buildings.
I'll give it a 4.0 out of 5. But our viewers have the final say, please text your vote to 882181. You could be the lucky winner of a three night stay in Easterhouse!
|
|
