Grenfell Tower Demolition
Discussion
It clearly needs to go I'm sure it means something to the families but it's so huge and such an eye sore. I'm not from the area but whenever I pass through its sat there as a reminder which while I'm sure some people need others dont. It's also unlikely to be safe all exposed and damaged. Tear it down and have a nice monument with the names and story kept forever by all means.
IIRC the structural engineers responsible for the temporary propping currently holding it up advised it had to come down before next winter (2022) or further shoring would be needed. As the structure is degrading over time.
The plan was/is to start taking it down next spring and be finished by the beginning of Autumn. Tenders will need to go out soon if works are to start in Spring.
The plan was/is to start taking it down next spring and be finished by the beginning of Autumn. Tenders will need to go out soon if works are to start in Spring.
Edited by b0rk on Sunday 5th September 15:26
It has to come down at some point as even if it wasn’t unsafe, no one would want to live there.
Yes, comms could have been better and to involve the various groups explaining the reasons why demolition has to happen but it will be interesting to see what’s going to be put in its place.
A memorial garden would be a nice touch but I imagine it will be some sort of housing with a plaque/statue near the site will end up happening. If it turns out to be a luxury block of flats with no social housing provision then they’re asking for trouble but I’ve seen no plans yet so we’ll have to see.
Yes, comms could have been better and to involve the various groups explaining the reasons why demolition has to happen but it will be interesting to see what’s going to be put in its place.
A memorial garden would be a nice touch but I imagine it will be some sort of housing with a plaque/statue near the site will end up happening. If it turns out to be a luxury block of flats with no social housing provision then they’re asking for trouble but I’ve seen no plans yet so we’ll have to see.
I don't think survivors or their families want to preserve it for any reason at all. It's all about whether tearing it down will take evidence with it
Given it's been 4 years since the disaster and no one has been prosecuted, I'm not sure there's much point keeping it from an evidence perspective. But I do see the point some people are making
Given it's been 4 years since the disaster and no one has been prosecuted, I'm not sure there's much point keeping it from an evidence perspective. But I do see the point some people are making
rscott said:
Isn't Grenfell United's point that they were told they'd be consulted/informed about the demolition plans and that simply didn't happen. They found out from the media instead.
Probably some trouble maker who works for the council has decided to tall the media instead of waiting for an official discussion with the families.It should have come down a long time ago but no one wanted to be the one in charge to say that. now they can quote the structural engineer as the one saying it must happen
The best memorial to Grenfell will be (I hope) improvements in practice in all the various trades and professions whose slipshod ways contributed to the disaster in the first place. We are desperately short of homes, and the site itself is need for living space.
I get the point about evidence, but I am not sure it matters much. The most depressing thing to me about Grenfell (apart of course from the deaths and losses) is how few surprises it or the enquiry produced. Not because of any cover up but because so many of the issues were obvious before the fire. The only shock to me was to hear that construction techniques well known for their risks in industrial buildings (where generally it is property not lives at stake) were being used in residential buildings, let alone used to render older originally fire resistant structures unsafe.
It is action we need, not memorial gardens.
I know this is Italy, but only a week ago:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/08/30/no-victims-in-...
And there will be more here in the future. What about other types of novel and flammable structures? Who wants to live in a 5 storey timber building? I certainly wouldn't; luckily this fire started at the top, so escape was relatively easy.
https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/18089220....
Incidentally, that article shows that the official reaction is not to say that the building should not be rebuilt in timber, but that a lot of detail changes should be made. I'd much rather live in a building that was fire resistant by its nature (concrete, masonry), rather than being built of flammable stuff protected by active measures which may not work when they are 20 years old, or relying on passive fire stopping measures- fire stopping and barriers are notorious for being poorly done in the first place or for being breached by subsequent building works when the original contractor is long gone.
I get the point about evidence, but I am not sure it matters much. The most depressing thing to me about Grenfell (apart of course from the deaths and losses) is how few surprises it or the enquiry produced. Not because of any cover up but because so many of the issues were obvious before the fire. The only shock to me was to hear that construction techniques well known for their risks in industrial buildings (where generally it is property not lives at stake) were being used in residential buildings, let alone used to render older originally fire resistant structures unsafe.
It is action we need, not memorial gardens.
I know this is Italy, but only a week ago:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/08/30/no-victims-in-...
And there will be more here in the future. What about other types of novel and flammable structures? Who wants to live in a 5 storey timber building? I certainly wouldn't; luckily this fire started at the top, so escape was relatively easy.
https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/18089220....
Incidentally, that article shows that the official reaction is not to say that the building should not be rebuilt in timber, but that a lot of detail changes should be made. I'd much rather live in a building that was fire resistant by its nature (concrete, masonry), rather than being built of flammable stuff protected by active measures which may not work when they are 20 years old, or relying on passive fire stopping measures- fire stopping and barriers are notorious for being poorly done in the first place or for being breached by subsequent building works when the original contractor is long gone.
valiant said:
It has to come down at some point as even if it wasn’t unsafe, no one would want to live there.
.
How would you know that, really have you done a survey ?.
Most adult people are practical and realistic, and any superstitious mumbo-jumbo
about a buildings' tragic past would not put them off getting a new flat in a revamped and safe tower block.
coppernorks said:
Most adult people are practical and realistic, and any superstitious mumbo-jumbo
about a buildings' tragic past would not put them off getting a new flat in a revamped and safe tower block.
Might work for a private block which has changed hands and been refurbished. about a buildings' tragic past would not put them off getting a new flat in a revamped and safe tower block.
Otherwise not so sure.
Completely agree with mac96
So many mistakes, so little responsibility. The best legacy would be a return to world class building control standards.
I think there are some determined to make it about austerity though (as if providing low cost housing in the heart of our most expensive city was not already a testament to this country's welfare system).
However, the council/management co. we're just sucked in by the industry wide mantra of carbon reduction at all costs, plus the corner cutting culture that now seems endemic in property construction.
I do get that the tenant Mgmt co were basically ignoring the residents groups pointing out genuine problems, but after a while the persistent, vocal complainers (with their blogs, their microsites, their placard waving) just become background noise unfortunately.
In my opinion some well focused campaigning about fire risks with professional support could have achieved far more than the scattergun approach of "woe is everything"
(Note I have no specific knowledge of grenfell, but this is a hunch from seeing the effectiveness (or otherwise) of protestors generally.)
I don't think the site will ever be developed, because grenfell United are a too powerful political force. A memorial of some sort would be best, now that rbkc has spent most of it's reserves buying the survivors houses in the capital.
Bad that the residents weren't told...this is basic stuff to get right, and does show they're just paying lip service to all the stuff about residents being at the heart of it all.
So many mistakes, so little responsibility. The best legacy would be a return to world class building control standards.
I think there are some determined to make it about austerity though (as if providing low cost housing in the heart of our most expensive city was not already a testament to this country's welfare system).
However, the council/management co. we're just sucked in by the industry wide mantra of carbon reduction at all costs, plus the corner cutting culture that now seems endemic in property construction.
I do get that the tenant Mgmt co were basically ignoring the residents groups pointing out genuine problems, but after a while the persistent, vocal complainers (with their blogs, their microsites, their placard waving) just become background noise unfortunately.
In my opinion some well focused campaigning about fire risks with professional support could have achieved far more than the scattergun approach of "woe is everything"
(Note I have no specific knowledge of grenfell, but this is a hunch from seeing the effectiveness (or otherwise) of protestors generally.)
I don't think the site will ever be developed, because grenfell United are a too powerful political force. A memorial of some sort would be best, now that rbkc has spent most of it's reserves buying the survivors houses in the capital.
Bad that the residents weren't told...this is basic stuff to get right, and does show they're just paying lip service to all the stuff about residents being at the heart of it all.
Ian Geary said:
Completely agree with mac96
So many mistakes, so little responsibility. The best legacy would be a return to world class building control standards.
I think there are some determined to make it about austerity though (as if providing low cost housing in the heart of our most expensive city was not already a testament to this country's welfare system).
However, the council/management co. we're just sucked in by the industry wide mantra of carbon reduction at all costs, plus the corner cutting culture that now seems endemic in property construction.
I do get that the tenant Mgmt co were basically ignoring the residents groups pointing out genuine problems, but after a while the persistent, vocal complainers (with their blogs, their microsites, their placard waving) just become background noise unfortunately.
In my opinion some well focused campaigning about fire risks with professional support could have achieved far more than the scattergun approach of "woe is everything"
(Note I have no specific knowledge of grenfell, but this is a hunch from seeing the effectiveness (or otherwise) of protestors generally.)
I don't think the site will ever be developed, because grenfell United are a too powerful political force. A memorial of some sort would be best, now that rbkc has spent most of it's reserves buying the survivors houses in the capital.
Bad that the residents weren't told...this is basic stuff to get right, and does show they're just paying lip service to all the stuff about residents being at the heart of it all.
72 victims & all their family & friends are victims too.So many mistakes, so little responsibility. The best legacy would be a return to world class building control standards.
I think there are some determined to make it about austerity though (as if providing low cost housing in the heart of our most expensive city was not already a testament to this country's welfare system).
However, the council/management co. we're just sucked in by the industry wide mantra of carbon reduction at all costs, plus the corner cutting culture that now seems endemic in property construction.
I do get that the tenant Mgmt co were basically ignoring the residents groups pointing out genuine problems, but after a while the persistent, vocal complainers (with their blogs, their microsites, their placard waving) just become background noise unfortunately.
In my opinion some well focused campaigning about fire risks with professional support could have achieved far more than the scattergun approach of "woe is everything"
(Note I have no specific knowledge of grenfell, but this is a hunch from seeing the effectiveness (or otherwise) of protestors generally.)
I don't think the site will ever be developed, because grenfell United are a too powerful political force. A memorial of some sort would be best, now that rbkc has spent most of it's reserves buying the survivors houses in the capital.
Bad that the residents weren't told...this is basic stuff to get right, and does show they're just paying lip service to all the stuff about residents being at the heart of it all.
I’m sure a nice monument or garden of remembrance would be appreciated .
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff