Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington - news and discussion

[teuchter]

Who's writing them off, other than you?

Here we go again.

What a waste of time.

 

[Pickman's model]

What a waste of time.

your new tagline

 

[stethoscope]

Here we go again.

What a waste of time.

This gives people excuse to write them off as rabble rousers rather than a residents' group who have been raising reasonable objections over the years.

But, but, concerns!!1!

 

[J Ed]

But, but, concerns!!1!

What has being a residents' group who has been raising reasonable objections over the years gotten them?

 

[Teaboy]

Who's writing them off, other than you?

Sorry I missed this earlier. Was this meant for me? I don't really get what you are saying.

 

[cupid_stunt]

This is what they say on the website

*head explodes*

That link is to Celotex, whereas the press reports name Arconic, are they connected despite having different names & websites?

 

[killer b]

Sorry I missed this earlier. Was this meant for me? I don't really get what you are saying.

No, I was replying to teucher.

 

[Teaboy]

*head explodes*

That link is to Celotex, whereas the press reports name Arconic, are they connected despite having different names & websites?

The Celotex is insulation used behind the cladding system. Arconic are the parent company of the Reynabond system which is the cladding.

 

[Teaboy]

No, I was replying to teucher.

Ah right, thanks.

 

[stethoscope]

What has being a residents' group who has been raising reasonable objections over the years gotten them?

Never mind no fucking roofs over their head, teuchter has concerns.

 

[Wilf]

Just to repeat the salient points from the Indie article:

Grenfell Tower was covered in material to make it look better. That’s being blamed for multiple deaths

So, no, the residents' group have very fucking right to bring up the cosmetic role of the cladding. it's not something to be written off or dismissed. It clearly forms part of the equation.

Indeed. It's not so much whether the appearance of a building is a standard consideration, part of usual planning processes. It's whether there was a specific impact in this case... and what that was. Talking about the 'view' from the conservation area symbolises the deeply fucked up relationship between rich and poor housing in London, alongside actual systems and processes designed to silence (even threaten) the Grenfell residents. We don't know if/how any of this played out at any stage in the refurbishment, right through to the work of the fitters. but by fuck it's relevant.

 

[Corax]

What a waste of time.

You called?

 

[Teaboy]

Indeed. It's not so much whether the appearance of a building is a standard consideration, part of usual planning processes. It's whether there was a specific impact in this case... and what that was. Talking about the 'view' from the conservation area symbolises the deeply fucked up relationship between rich and poor housing in London, alongside actual systems and processes designed to silence (even threaten) the Grenfell residents. We don't know if/how any of this played out at any stage in the refurbishment, right through to the work of the fitters. but by fuck it's relevant.

I do get this point. Not why was the building clad but why was this particular cladding used? I'm just worried that from a justice for residents perspective it may turn out to be a bit of a fruitless route. The various parties involved will just be able to hide behind regulations and test data.

 

[J Ed]

Never mind no fucking roofs over their head, teuchter has concerns.

It's harder to think of a stronger indictment of doing the right thing as an ordinary person in our society.

 

[squirrelp]

 

[Wilf]

I do get this point. Not why was the building clad but why was this particular cladding used? I'm just worried that from a justice for residents perspective it may turn out to be a bit of a fruitless route. The various parties involved will just be able to hide behind regulations and test data.

I'm sure that's right. Just feel that every bit of this has to be kept in view. There will no doubt be some very bad practices that emerge in terms of things like the internal pipes or other repairs (mentioned as random examples) that turn out to have had no real bearing on the spread of the fire. However they are equally symptomatic of what went wrong, the lack of regard for tenants - potentially, accidents waiting to happen (even if not active components of what happened last week).

 

[alex_]

Her conclusions in that article are remarkably stupid and show a stunning lack of insight and reasoning. A true free market libertarian.

What exactly is the issue ?

The last paragraph makes perfect sense - everything is a series of trade offs, spend more on one thing and you have to spend less on something else. Government is about balancing the priorities.

Alex

 

[teuchter]

I'm just going to quote this post from a few pages back. If people want to continue to ignore the points it makes, so be it:

thought I would add a few words on this from the perspective of a local authority town planner as the comments from the planning report really have been wildly misrepresented, most prominently by the Independent.

firstly the planning stage will have had next to nothing to do with the original decision to clad the tower. the project will have been planned months or years before the planning application, which is a requirement for any development of this kind, not just because this development was connected with the Council. the planning application will have been submitted only when the decision to clad the tower was reached.

the purpose of the planning report was to set out the assessment of the merits of the proposals from a planning perspective. so the report was duty-bound to cover aspects such as appearance, including from the conservation area.

the consideration of impact of a proposal on a conservation area is absolutely standard for any development in or 'affecting' a conservation area. this has nothing to do with snobbery, conservation areas simply have architectural or historic value and are given special protection through the system for that reason. near Grenfell Tower is a large former public housing estate which is protected as as conservation area for its architectural value and its place 'in the landscape of labour history' (Old Oak Lane), whilst there will be miles of hyper expensive ugly modern developments occupied by the super-rich down at the Thames that aren't. yes conservation areas are generally occupied by the better off, but broadly speaking, that's simply because people pay a premium for well designed places.

finally, health and safety is not a planning matter. the planning application process is completely separate to the building warrant/ building control process, even though the two departments often work side by side. that means any concerns about health and safety will not have come into the author's thinking when writing their report. it was not a trade off between h & s and appearance.

unhelpfully, the application seems to have included a lot of superfluous technical information which gives the impression that it was relevant to the planning application. It is for the applicant to decide if they want to submit unnecessary detail, it doesn't mean this is given any consideration. the author of the report will probably have skimmed over some of this content. it wasn't relevant to the planning decision they had to make.

i've never been much of a fan of this cladding material, but that's a personal thing. on the face of it, this would have been a no-brainer approval for the author. reference to the Conservation Area was not a clincher, as much as simply box ticking.

the Independent article was really misleading and unhelpful and has sent people down a dead end.

EDIT TO ADD: this is not to say that people shouldn't question the process that led to the cladding of the tower. but simply that the planning report is not the evidence it is being presented as. a more pertinent question perhaps is whether it was easier to clad the tower than demolish it?

 

[Pickman's model]

What exactly is the issue ?

The last paragraph makes perfect sense - everything is a series of trade offs, spend more on one thing and you have to spend less on something else. Government is about balancing the priorities.

Alex

Yeh rbkc are unbalanced

 

[teuchter]

Never mind no fucking roofs over their head, teuchter has concerns.

People have no roof over their heads, and you are wasting time indulging conspiracy theories.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

What exactly is the issue ?

The last paragraph makes perfect sense - everything is a series of trade offs, spend more on one thing and you have to spend less on something else. Government is about balancing the priorities.

Alex

That would only be true if you really believed that government action or inaction couldn't impact on the creation of wealth and you don't believe that surely?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Pickman's model]

People have no roof over their heads, and you are wasting time indulging conspiracy theories.

Yeh you wheel out a smidgen of concern now and then.

 

[Pickman's model]

What exactly is the issue ?

The last paragraph makes perfect sense - everything is a series of trade offs, spend more on one thing and you have to spend less on something else. Government is about balancing the priorities.

Alex

Is it? Do you really believe that?

 

[bimble]

Painful to say it but I agree with teuchter, with the point he keeps trying to make. But it might be inevitable that in a horrific situation like this a clear simplish narrative (it was the cladding & it was clad to please the rich neighbours) is irresistibly attractive.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Well I've spent a few days combing through the Google docs list that was posted on here re: missing people. I've cross checked names, ages, floors, flat numbers etc in the media with available data re: residence lists from 2013. Obviously some people have moved out and in a couple of cases moved flats in the same building.

The total dead and missing from these media reports is 79.

I suspect that's a pretty reasonable base estimate from reliable sources, but it's clear there's a lot more people unreported. Many of those are from lower floors, so it's possible they're safe as the majority of those low down in the building did escape. There are however clearly many more from higher floors still missing.

 

[cupid_stunt]

WTF are you doing posting this out of date nonsense?

If everyone died, why are hundreds still in need of help & support?

You are a loon, and need to fuck off.

 

[J Ed]

Painful to say it but I agree with teuchter, with the point he keeps trying to make. But it might be inevitable that in a horrific situation like this a clear simplish narrative (it was the cladding & it was clad to please the rich neighbours) is irresistibly attractive.

Regardless of the details of the narrative, it seems clear to me that the story is about power. Who has it and who doesn't and the consequences of that differential.

 

[stethoscope]

People have no roof over their heads, and you are wasting time indulging conspiracy theories.

If you read my first reply, I didn't 'indulge' any such thing, whilst also not being so fucking arrogant to dismiss that things do or don't always get done for the most sound of reasons (and not in a 'conspirital' sense - I mean political, economical, capital drivers).

 

[alex_]

Is it? Do you really believe that?

What do you object to in the last paragraph ? ( in the article, I'm sure you object to my whole Post )

And yes - if you want to spend more money on one thing you have to spend less money on something else. Unless you have an infinite amount of money to spend on something, and generally you don'tz

Alex

 

[Teaboy]

What exactly is the issue ?

The last paragraph makes perfect sense - everything is a series of trade offs, spend more on one thing and you have to spend less on something else. Government is about balancing the priorities.

Alex

The point about safety regulations being about critical mass and governments having to make very cold decisions upon priorities (even if that means accepting the death and suffering on some is one I understand). I don't like it and I don't have to but that is the prevalent way of thinking and is essentially how insurance works.

What I don't accept is that safety critical thinking should be left to the free market. I will never accept that the free market will in the long term make the best decisions for our safety. I also think its a bit bloody rich for someone that enjoys the benefit of modern safety standards (that exist specifically because of regulations) to say they shouldn't really exist.

Everywhere I look in my industry I see corner cutting, low quality products and highly questionable practice all brought about in the name of efficiency. We need more and better regulations and we cannot rely on those who financially benefit from lax regulations to police themselves.