Grenfell Tower to be demolished.

[AnAlpacaForChristmasPleaseSanta]

News - Grenfell to be demolished, bereaved families told www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5g99xy979o BBC News - Grenfell to be demolished, bereaved families told www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5g99xy979o

I can understand why some people want it torn down and a nice memorial there instead. But I also see why some want it left as it's a final resting place to so many.

I feel for the relatives but believe it's time for the tower to go. Perhaps relatives of the tragedy could be asked for suggestions of a memorial and possibly design something? What worries me more is what will happen to the land once the tower is demolished? Being North Kensington will expensive private luxury flats be built on the site or social housing? Sadly, I think I know the answer.

The 39 storey Deutsche Bank building in Manhattan took 4 years to dismantle. Like Grenfell Tower, there were human remains to contend with, but only on the roof, not within the structure. So, two years to recover any remaining body parts and dismantle an asbestos-ridden, 20 storey, concrete-framed structure, bang in the middle of a large, fully-occupied housing estate, sounds about right.

@Houndown I really don't think any flats - luxury or otherwise - will be built.
The space is too small - which was one of the problems. Fire engines had difficulty getting close enough.

Building luxury flats is a good thing. When someone moves into a luxury flat, they are typically moving from a slightly less luxurious home, opening it up to a new owner. The person who moves into the slightly less luxurious home will be moving in from a home which is slightly less luxurious than that, and so on and so on. A whole chain will thus open up, benefitting people at all levels of the property market.

Also, sorry to sound like a Tory Bastard (Which I am not), but rich people do in fact pay a lot of tax and the country benefits from them being enticed to live in London and ensuring they have attractive flats in exciting central locations to live in.

We would be better off building social a housing in more average parts of London. The UK is already unusual in how much of its social housing is located in the most expensive parts of the capital.

I’m pretty certain the footprints of the towers weren’t built on, the new towers were on the old gardens/plaza. That land was so valuable, I don’t think Grenfel is anything like as valuable and I think you could have a much bigger garden.
i’m not sure the cost of the slow demolition is really necessary, I don’t think it will placate anyone much, just delay it all.

I doubt they'd put flats there. It is people's graves. Whether we like to think it is prime land to build on and ease the housing crisis is immaterial. The council and house builders/cladding company are under investigation, the police will conclude their investigations and bring charges next year apparently.

It ultimately comes down to the fact 72 people (that we know of, it has been reported there were many more living there) died, some people didn't get anything back to bury, some got a couple of bones. To put up flats, luxury or otherwise, would be controversial.

As I say whatever happens needs to be done carefully, for the survivors, the family and friends, (and the firemen). It was the worst residential fire since the war.

Slightly off the topic but I've read the fire was caused by a faulty fridge/freezer. Are these not checked in tower blocks by Health and Safety?

This is a lovely idea- If the space is completely unsuitable for safe high density housing due to the small footprint. A landscaped hill garden using some recovered materials would be respectful and look like an ancient burial monument type of memorial. Albeit no actual burials there.

I think that or something similar will happen eventually. You just have to look at the 9/11 site.

Because it's Kensington and Chelsea Council, which loathes poor people living in their borough. It won't be social housing. They'll do shifty deals every step of the way to ensure as much of the housing as possible to replace it goes to the extremely wealthy. An insult to those who lived and died there, and their families know.

It needs to come down. It's an eyesore and prob unsafe. No one wants to live near or work near seeing a constant reminder daily. Very sad but time to move on.

Residential flats aren't covered by health and safety the same way an office or school or care home would be. Only the communal/common areas. No one checks houses so why would they check flats?

Definitely should be demolished but it would be better to then turn the area into a beautiful garden area, a peaceful place for the whole community, perhaps a pond for wildlife.

I'd like it demolished to be replaced by a small memorial and some medium density, high quality council housing. Pigs might fly.

Why would they be checked and by who?
The fridge would have belonged to the person who lived in the flat (I don't know if he was a "council" renter, private renter or owner of the flat).
The flats were a mix of council and privately owned.

We definitely do not need affordable housing there as it won't actually be affordable for those who need it. We need social housing instead so that people can afford to rent in the area.

It shouldn't be left as a shrine. It was a terrible tragedy, but the living have needs too. Especially those on lower incomes.

Again, the footprint and location of the building make it very unlikely that housing will or could be built there.

Grenfell Tower contains asbestos that has, of course, been damaged. It needs to be carefully removed.
A memorial/tribute seems appropriate but I'm not sure what would be best. Safe housing seems reasonable.

That’s simply not practicable, nor should it be necessary. Buildings such as these are designed to be compartmentalised, whereby each dwelling should easily be able to contain any fire until the fire service is able to extinguish it. The concrete walls and floors in Grenfell Tower should have made it virtually impossible for fire to spread to other levels. As we know, the flammable cladding that was applied externally completely undermined this principle.

This is London. There is space.

I don't know. I live not right there, but fairly locally. It would be a really tough spot to build. The only thing would make any financial sense would be another high rise and there would, rightfully, be huge community opposition, and the safety issues that came into play with getting the fire out would be almost impossible to get around without razing nearby and attached buildings.

Obviously never say never, but I think housing is pretty outside possibility.

There really isn't if they want it to be safe and not have a similar disaster.
I will see if I can get a Google Earth imagine. There's one access road which is "shared space" - ie pedestrianised and this has very limited actual room for emergency vehicles. The other side is a pedestrian footpath.
The back is a railway (London Underground) bridge.

@Trolleysaregoodforemployment the parts I have marked in read are the footpath (left side) and "shared space" road (right side).
I'm marking this as a sensitive picture for those that don't want to see it.
The space is too small for housing to be built there and be safe.

And the aerial view makes it seem much less congested than it actually feels when you're on the ground there.