personally don’t understand the “need” for an unsafe structure to stand as a “memorial”
There are many memorials around the area.
It’s a loud small group who are aggrieved, IMO, they need the building as a symbol to use in media to prove their pain/loss. On repeat.
But why is this different from say a train wreck, or plane crash. The remains are removed, the wreckage removed - it’s normal. Home burn, get rebuilt. City of London, burned rebuilt.
They don’t want the area rebuilt - homes are rebuilt after fires all the time, even if there was negligence.
It’s a big area, where there is need for housing - but it won’t be built on. There are many people who would live there - like the thousands arriving by boat - do you think they care that there was a tragedy when they get brand new flat???
It’s a terrible location for garden or park.
Keeping a hazard for memorial is INSANE.