Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington - news and discussion

[Teaboy]

Your whole approach to this is a bit odd in itself, and is certainly back-to-front. Go back to the fundamentals. They weren't compelled to spend ten million quid on upgrades because of a conservation area, they were compelled to throw some supporting blurb about conservation into an existing project because that's how planning works.

Apart perhaps from media misinterpretation, all of this is an aside - what the motivation for the project was is still open to debate.

Yes, this is exactly my thinking as well. You don't get grants of 10 million quid just for a face lift. I said this yesterday all councils, social housing providers etc are obliged (they have no say in the matter) to thermally upgrade their properties. This is how you get the grants.

It is clear that they changed the windows at the same time as important when thermal upgrades are being carried out. If you were to scaffold a building like this (in fairness they probably used mast climbers) then that would cost a million quid in itself. So the idea is that if there is no wall insulation and the windows need replacing you do the whole lot at the same time.

Now there are lots of issues around how the work was carried out but the motivation for the work seems to be what it is. To improve the building. However if you're a resident you're clearly going to be hacked off if they spend 10 million on things you didn't ask for and the lifts don't work etc.

 

[Wilf]

Cart before the horse here, the works will have been planned and then consideration of the impact to the conservation area will have taken place after application put in to plannning, nothing points to the work having been planned primarily for the benefit of the neighbour's view (although 'smartening up' the appearance of blocks like this is seen as desirable, but happens everywhere, not just in expensive areas).

This is usual planning stuff, there is a standard list of impacts that Development Control will pick from and apply to any scheme as necessary.

I seriously doubt there is anything to go at here with regards to the motivation for the refurbishment, despite the click baity independent article. There's plenty of other credible things to hang them for, better focusing on them.

Well, we'll have to see. Poor doors, gentrification, social cleansing, tenants fire concerns ignored - as well as the relationship between a rich conservation area and a poor block of flats. That's the context. How it played out in the specific decisions made about the project remains to be seen. But at the very least, the relationship between all of the background and the actual construction project is a material issue - regardless of teuchter's squawking.

 

[hash tag]

Councils beig councils will always take the bottom price for doing any work, regardless of how shoddy the workmen/materials might be. This is their obligation to the council tax payers. It's all about value for money.
A complication these days is that many of the properties in these blocks are in private ownership, making it more complicated to demolish the block and start again, leaving the alternative of tarting the place up. On the cheap.

 

[Wilf]

Yes, this is exactly my thinking as well. You don't get grants of 10 million quid just for a face lift. I said this yesterday all councils, social
Now there are lots of issues around how the work was carried out but the motivation for the work seems to be what it is. To improve the building. However if you're a resident you're clearly going to be hacked off if they spend 10 million on things you didn't ask for and the lifts don't work etc.

And that gets right to it as well. Nobody can give definitive answers on the cause of the fire, but how we got to the point where this particular refurbishment was carried out, who decided, why other concerns were ignored, is absolutely central. It's about power.

 

[not-bono-ever]

First question: Why didn't you talk to residents?
Answer: Two minutes of fucking waffle with no answer to the question
Fucking robot
London fire: Seventeen dead after blaze engulfs tower block - BBC News

she is fucking disgusting. a vile excuse for a human being. scum.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Any building which will have an impact on a conservation area will be assessed in this way. It's assessed because of the existence of the conservation area, not because of who lives in the conservation area.

It has everything to do with who lives there, & I speak from experience working for a LA. The shit unnecessesary jobs we have to undertake just because the cunts that live there, whether cllrs or millionaires.

 

[ViolentPanda]

two absolute red lines going forward have to be a full public enquiry, and the rehousing of all survivors in the immediate vicinity for as long as they wish to live there.

The former may happen, a couple of decades from now, the latter is vanishingly unlikely. Most of the poor bastards won't even be rehoused in London.

 

[Teaboy]

she is fucking disgusting. a vile excuse for a human being. scum.

Totally.

Why does she keep prioritizing mentioning the emergency services? I mean don't get me wrong they are incredible people who were working under terrible conditions but it is there job. Possibly hundreds of people dead, many many people homeless and her first thoughts and words are about the people doing their jobs who will go home to their homes and their families and the end of their shift. She was doing it last night as well. Barely human.

 

[YouSir]

Totally.

Why does she keep prioritizing mentioning the emergency services? I mean don't get me wrong they are incredible people who were working under terrible conditions but it is there job. Possibly hundreds of people dead, many many people homeless and her first thoughts and words are about the people doing their jobs who will go home to their homes and their families and the end of their shift. She was doing it last night as well. Barely human.

The one thing she knows to say which no one's going to disagree with and which requires her to do absolutely fucking nothing of use.

 

[Teaboy]

The one thing she knows to say which no one's going to disagree with and which requires her to do absolutely fucking nothing of use.

Its like the election campaign is still going on. She's hiding from the public and eventually when forced she gives a terrible and utterly evasive interview where she can't even pretend to give the tiniest fuck about people. She is absolutely not fit for office.

 

[teuchter]

It has everything to do with who lives there, & I speak from experience working for a LA. The shit unnecessesary jobs we have to undertake just because the cunts that live there, whether cllrs or millionaires.

I am aware of what you describe. However, it does not change the fact that if a development will have an impact on a conservation area, this impact will be assessed regardless of who lives in the conservation area.

 

[Cloo]

The former may happen, a couple of decades from now, the latter is vanishingly unlikely. Most of the poor bastards won't even be rehoused in London.

Oh yeah. They'll promise that everyone will be housed in social housing in the area, we will rebuild etc. Five years down the line when public eyes are elsewhere: 'sorry, land prices etc, have to put in lots of private sale units in order to afford social housing, sorry, we can't possibly afford more than 59 social rented units, shirt off me back etc, but hey, another 100 units will be 'affordable' and that's almost like being social housing'

 

[Wilf]

Just saw some clips on the guardian site about people turning up and sorting it out, bringing bags of clothes and food. Everybody just getting on and supporting each other at the community centre, loads of hand written notices, right to the point. And then somebody coming straight out and saying it wouldn't have happened in a rich area. In in fucking tears, at my desk at work.
Grenfell Tower fire: 'Families are dead, they've got to do something' - video

 

[scifisam]

Councils beig councils will always take the bottom price for doing any work, regardless of how shoddy the workmen/materials might be. This is their obligation to the council tax payers. It's all about value for money.
A complication these days is that many of the properties in these blocks are in private ownership, making it more complicated to demolish the block and start again, leaving the alternative of tarting the place up. On the cheap.

I wonder if many of them are private? Mortgage providers generally don't give mortgages to people buying in tower blocks and this is an expensive area - not like the nicer parts of South Ken obviously, but still a lot of money to find even after the RTB discount. It's likely that almost all the flats are still council.

 

[Teaboy]

Councils beig councils will always take the bottom price for doing any work, regardless of how shoddy the workmen/materials might be. This is their obligation to the council tax payers. It's all about value for money.
A complication these days is that many of the properties in these blocks are in private ownership, making it more complicated to demolish the block and start again, leaving the alternative of tarting the place up. On the cheap.

This is certainly true. There was a contractor who used to do a load of these type projects who were famous for quoting 20% below cost to win the project. After winning it they would then take an axe to everything to make their price viable.

 

[ChrisD]

Cart before the horse here, the works will have been planned and then consideration of the impact to the conservation area will have taken place after application put in to plannning, nothing points to the work having been planned primarily for the benefit of the neighbour's view (although 'smartening up' the appearance of blocks like this is seen as desirable, but happens everywhere, not just in expensive areas).

This is usual planning stuff, there is a standard list of impacts that Development Control will pick from and apply to any scheme as necessary.

I seriously doubt there is anything to go at here with regards to the motivation for the refurbishment, despite the click baity independent article. There's plenty of other credible things to hang them for, better focusing on them.

(Edited to add: There may be valid criticism of this being the kind of 'grand scheme' that local authorities like, as external refurbishments are a very visual example of progress and renewal, good for posing in front of for the local rag come election time, whereas sticking in sprinklers wouldn't be a recognisable change to most people. That's part of a general problem with local politics, especially when cash is limited - things are done that look like things being done, not necessarily the most beneficial)

Interesting info (link to planning drawings etc ) on olly wainwright's twitter feed today...(sorry can't seem to link from here)

 

[LDC]

Why does she keep prioritizing mentioning the emergency services? I mean don't get me wrong they are incredible people who were working under terrible conditions but it is there job. Possibly hundreds of people dead, many many people homeless and her first thoughts and words are about the people doing their jobs who will go home to their homes and their families and the end of their shift. She was doing it last night as well. Barely human.

Yeah, as someone that's worked in the emergency services it always feels quite odd for politicians to go on about the bravery etc etc. It's their/our fucking job, yeah say thanks at the end or something for sure, but ffs priortise expressing sympathy and talk about what you're going to do for the poor fuckers that have suffered and lost the most.

 

[Pickman's model]

I am aware of what you describe. However, it does not change the fact that if a development will have an impact on a conservation area, this impact will be assessed regardless of who lives in the conservation area.

as per post #838, it is the views from the houses in the conservation area, not your actual impact on the conservation area: it is what the people in the conservation area see from their windows. the nice appearance for the rich people in the conservation area not for people passing through or whatnot. do you not understand?

 

[bimble]

I wonder if many of them are private? Mortgage providers generally don't give mortgages to people buying in tower blocks and this is an expensive area - not like the nicer parts of South Ken obviously, but still a lot of money to find even after the RTB discount. It's likely that almost all the flats are still council.

Don't know, but nearby Trellick Tower is full of privately owned flats now, around half a million for a two bedroom. Not sure of the proportion private to council.

 

[Cid]

Interesting info (link to planning drawings etc ) on olly wainwright's twitter feed today...(sorry can't seem to link from here)

Well the full application is publicly available.

 

[teuchter]

as per post #838, it is the views from the houses in the conservation area, not your actual impact on the conservation area: it is what the people in the conservation area see from their windows. the nice appearance for the rich people in the conservation area not for people passing through or whatnot. do you not understand?

What are you on about? When I say visual impact, that means, what it looks like, viewed from within a conservation area, or in some cases, in views towards a conservation area. What it looks like from the street and what it looks like from inside buildings, in that conservation area. Yes those buildings may be homes for wealthy people. I think you have made that rather obvious point enough times now. However, that is not what determines whether or not it is assessed in the planning report.

 

[EastEnder]

I wonder if many of them are private? Mortgage providers generally don't give mortgages to people buying in tower blocks and this is an expensive area - not like the nicer parts of South Ken obviously, but still a lot of money to find even after the RTB discount. It's likely that almost all the flats are still council.

Yeah, banks are usually quite reluctant to lend on flats in tower blocks. However, I believe there's quite a buy-to-let presence in such buildings - BtL landlords who can afford to buy for cash will buy up flats in council tower blocks, especially in such a desirable location. I'd put money on many of the privately owned flats being bought in this way.

 

[Cid]

Don't know, but nearby Trellick Tower is full of privately owned flats now, around half a million for a two bedroom. Not sure of the proportion private to council.

Trellick tower was designed by Goldfinger though, so has had a prestige element to it for a long time.

e2a: not that I'm for a moment saying they aren't slavering to sell off all the social housing in the area.

 

[Teaboy]

Fwiw any privately owned flats would have had to contribute to the renovation works. If you own a flat in a council block and they are going to do works like this you just get a bill land on your door matt.

 

[scifisam]

Yeah, banks are usually quite reluctant to lend on flats in tower blocks. However, I believe there's quite a buy-to-let presence in such buildings - BtL landlords who can afford to buy for cash will buy up flats in council tower blocks, especially in such a desirable location. I'd put money on many of the privately owned flats being bought in this way.

Yeah, agreed about buy to letters (which will make it more difficult to ascertain how many people are missing) but the tenants would have had to be able to buy their flats to sell on in the first place.

Trellick Tower might be different in that its iconic status might have meant that the council themselves jumped to sell any flats that became vacant. Under last year's bill they'd have to because they'd likely be worth over a million. Not so for Grenfell.

 

[bimble]

Kind of interesting article here
"If the cladding really was acting as the vector for the spread of fire, it would appear that a “prettification” was at least in part responsible for this disaster. This would be ironic, as the nearby Trellick Tower — designed by Erno Goldfinger and completed two years before the Grenfell Tower — is now one of London’s most desired addresses, adored by lovers of its uncompromising concrete Brutalism."
Subscribe to read

 

[Ted Striker]

They're in huge demand (obviously Trellick is the Barbican of West London) - The uninterrupted views are to the chagrin to property developers everywhere.

 

[Orang Utan]

Fwiw any privately owned flats would have had to contribute to the renovation works. If you own a flat in a council block and they are going to do works like this you just get a bill land on your door matt.

yep, which makes it more likely for an owner to sell up if they can't afford, making for more absentee landlords buying to let

 

[phillm]

Yeah, banks are usually quite reluctant to lend on flats in tower blocks. However, I believe there's quite a buy-to-let presence in such buildings - BtL landlords who can afford to buy for cash will buy up flats in council tower blocks, especially in such a desirable location. I'd put money on many of the privately owned flats being bought in this way.

Here's one in the block.

Buy

Check out this property for sale on Rightmove!

Rent

Check out this property for rent on Rightmove!

 

[Cid]

Kind of interesting article here
"If the cladding really was acting as the vector for the spread of fire, it would appear that a “prettification” was at least in part responsible for this disaster. This would be ironic, as the nearby Trellick Tower — designed by Erno Goldfinger and completed two years before the Grenfell Tower — is now one of London’s most desired addresses, adored by lovers of its uncompromising concrete Brutalism."
Subscribe to read

Paywall.