To think all tower blocks should be demolished.

[11122aa]

Rather than fitting sprinklers in old blocks should they all just be condemned and the residents quickly relocated.

Oh blimey The Mighty Taxpayers have arrived.

Oh and before I leave the thread, people who live in that city you can't afford in unsafe tower blocks pay tax too.

Some of them probably need to go - those that were constructed as cheaply as possible and have not been updated or maintained. Getting some of those up to a decent, modern standard may well cost more than a modern replacement would. Also, there needs to be an investment in security - I read that one of the things the Grenfell residents wanted was a concierge, to stop people who had no business there causing problems.

However many may be perfectly salvageable, and these should be saved if possible.

What is definitely needed is an urgent overhaul of fire safety and building regulations, and a nationally mandated inspection programme. And if necessary, a ring-fenced grant fund for local authorities to get the necessary work done.

We lived in tower blocks when dad was in the army - they can be fine. But right now all too many of them seem to be out of sight, out of mind to the people in charge. That has got to change.

Quickly relocated.. 😂

Yes, in an ideal world you're probably right, however.. the current social and private renting market is absolutely dire pretty much across the whole country - a lot of the people will probably be social housing tenants.. I work in social housing in a much less popular area than this and if we had even 5 'spare' properties to 'quickly relocate' our already homeless people into - never mind making them homeless purposely - we would be EXTREMELY LUCKY.

Unfortunately it's just not feasible - what does need to happen is proper procedures being put in place, sprinkler systems, effective fire escape routes.. just general preventative measures being put in place to prevent anything like this happening in the future

Eh?

Whilst it does irk me that as a taxpayer I'm supporting the housing of people in a city I couldn't afford to live in myself

As a taxpayer it irks me that people think 'wealthier' areas shouldn't have to shoulder their fair share of HB claimants and that the problem should be passed on to less wealthy areas that are already struggling to balance the books.

They need to be made safe, invested in and brought up to the standard that we would expect from a (for example) Premier Inn. Full stop. High rises can be safe, comfortable and convenient. The fact that many of them are not is a reflection of the priority they have been given. I wonder how many of our MPs would be happy to live in one with the current standards .

Quickly relocated you say?...
I've been waiting 3 years to be relocated after leaving an abusive relationship it's not that easy OP. Maybe 1 or 2 house come up on my home finder suitable for me and my children. 11 on a very very very good week. And I'm still coming 50-70 in the queue.

Or they build the tower blocks to the same standard as those that the rich have in this country.

Grimbles quite right. It irks me that people seem to think they are "supporting" other people living in more expensive areas. Mind you, the government really does need to step in and sort out the crazy tents and prices in London. It is a gravy train for some and a real route to nowhere for others

Whilst it does irk me that as a taxpayer I'm supporting the housing of people in a city I couldn't afford to live in myself

Doesn't that statement strike you as ironic? So the rich, who are allowed to get richer and contribute disproportionately less, are allowed to take over a city like London.

Nurses, teachers, policemen and women don't earn enough to buy somewhere in London. When there's a terrorist attack, you are grateful for them but god forbid they should be allowed to own a home.

Hospitals schools and the police and fire groups should set up their own staff housing.

Why are Middlesbrough, Hartlepool and Ferryhill getting a bashing? You might not want to live there but I'm pretty sure that the majority of us that live in the North East wouldn't swap it for anywhere down south. It is true that there are large parts of the North East which are under occupied but there's no complaints here - little traffic, lots of open space, 30 minutes in any direction and you've got amazing coastline or beautiful countryside. The question should really be why wouldn't people want to be relocated here?

Are we only talking about council towers, or the private ones with multi-million pound flats in them?

Should we be lobbying other governments to do the same?
Hong Kong, Dubai, China, Singapore etc all rely on tower blocks for housing their populations

It irks me that people seem to think they are "supporting" other people living in more expensive areas.

Trying to work out if this is a pop at me. I couldn't afford to live in London, why shouldn't I be irked that my taxes are being used to inadvertently contribute to the demand and hence crazy rents that we all agree are abhorrent and contribute to poverty?

We need to think about how the areas where terraces are standing empty could be made into somewhere people would want to move to - could the government offer incentives (tax breaks?) to companies to relocate/build new office spaces in those areas, creating jobs? The £1 housing schemes have had some success - perhaps subsidised lending rates to encourage people to buy and renovate in these areas.

Of course I realise there would be a cost to all this and there is no magic solution, but that's the direction I would take in preference to forcing people to relocate from tower blocks so they could be torn down.

Where I'm coming 30 is a terrible area.
The 2nd one is okish area.
There really isn't enough social housing.
I can't afford a deposit to buy and I can't afford to private rent either.

Apparently K+C council have a £274 million surplus mainly because they don't have to spend so much of their budget on services due to their resident demographic. Meanwhile other councils are having to cut essential services and reduce things like bin collections, etc.

Hang on believeitornot I'm on your side.

One thing that I thought was quite sad that came from Grenfell was how many young children were living quite high up, I'm sure I've read a few bits up north where the councils won't house families with young children above a certain storey. It must be really difficult with babies and younger ones if you're living above maybe 4th or 5th floor. I think families with young children should get priority for houses with outside space if at all possible. I thought this was already the case, maybe the lack of housing is really that bad (don't pretend to know Kensington area other than as a visitor!)

"The question should really be why wouldn't people want to be relocated here?"

I don't think many people would like to be evicted from their homes and relocated to somewhere not of their choosing- regardless of their current housing situation or income bracket.

I thought the point was to start treating council tenants more like worthwhile people whose quality of life matters- not less?

So the rich, who are allowed to get richer and contribute disproportionately less, are allowed to take over a city like London.Nurses, teachers, policemen and women don't earn enough to buy somewhere in London. When there's a terrorist attack, you are grateful for them but god forbid they should be allowed to own a home.

It's supply and demand. When housing is limited and demand high the prices go up and the people you're talking about are priced out. And it's shit. But that the government is (or is expected to) pay whatever it takes to house more people in the city just means it adds to demand and perpetuates the problem.

But, crucially, I don't think that relocating people away from their social networks is acceptable either - I don't know what the answer is. I think I'm allowed to be irked about it though.

I have always felt like that op, I think they look like miserable horrible places to live. Obviously that is very unfair of me to say given I don't live in one. Lots were taken down years ago here and the residents were rehomed into houses, from people I know who were affected, it seemed to be positively received. There are very few now here in NI.

I think my skewed view comes from TV though as they are often portrayed as dangerous and rundown (broken lifts, druggies on every stairwell, people being pushed off balconies - I may watch too much casualty , I of course have no idea if this is the reality

I would love there to be a reality type documentary set in one to show what it is really like, is it like a community? Then idiots like me might see what it is actually like

I think I always had an image of frightened residents and people trailing children and shopping up 20 flights of stairs.

It doesn't sound like it TeaChest?

I couldn't afford to live in London, why shouldn't I be irked that my taxes are being used to inadvertently contribute to the demand and hence crazy rents that we all agree are abhorrent and contribute to poverty?

Do you mean propping up house prices?

It's really a pity that we couldn't spend as much money on some of our 'poor' areas of the country as we do on rents in London. This would make them places that people would be interested in relocating to, as well as delivering a benefit to the local people (and reduce the draw of tax revenues into London from areas that arguably need the investment themselves).