I'm not claiming it is - I'm claiming that it is prime real estate and could be used much more efficiently to build more social housing in a less expensive area... this is simply a point about efficient use of resources. Someone else referred to the price of land being a reason for not developing when if anything it ought to be a real to develop and knock down unsafe buildings like this.
Tower block fire - london
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
I'm not claiming it is - I'm claiming that it is prime real estate and could be used much more efficiently to build more social housing in a less expensive area... this is simply a point about efficient use of resources. Someone else referred to the price of land being a reason for not developing when if anything it ought to be a real to develop and knock down unsafe buildings like this.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
I guess it depends on what's falling?
I'm sure they can be made fire proof, if not already and from the materials used, they seem to handle bricks at a minimum. They not fragile, they made pretty tough.
most people living in council housing or housing authority accommodation are
looks like all kinds of things window frams etc.
but they would then be full of burning wood and broken glass.
In this context though its vital that they are learned regardless of the outcome of an investigation. Its sad but safety improvements come about after these things happen.
Because otherwise you get slums and ghettos which increases overall crime rates in the country.
It would be a disgusting and unjust society where people who work 50-60 hour jobs in London can't afford to live in London!
I think its sad when an unforeseen new development causes an emergency nd procedures/policies need to be changed to account for this new unforeseen thing.
in this case trough it seems criminal that existing policy was not enacted
no one is talking about slums and ghettos... that is complete hyperbole - social housing exists outside of London too, my point is simply that it massively inefficient for it to be in Central London and that given the value of these old buildings they could easily be sold off if it was managed London wide... building some more social housing in zones 3,4,5 etc.. doesn't mean you'll create a ghetto - other people live there too!
It's not prime real estate at all, this is pretty much in White City just called North Kensington to make it sound better.
The social housing there is extensive and serves the community well on the whole.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
Well in the last 10 minutes, I couldn't really find anything regarding what they damage they can take, but they seem to be deployed at buildings with fires, so am guessing in their design, they must have tested falling objects hitting them. If they can handle a a fat human hitting it, I guess they can handle a few things hitting it.
Anyway, this link here is one source I found that can handle 192 feet.
https://www.vetter.de/vetter_emergency/en/Rescue+Products/Safety+cushions/Safety+cushion+SP+60.html
Video of it in action.
Last edited:
i was partly thinking about the people jumping onto tem once they have stuff on them.
I just get the feeling if it was so easy and simple a solution firedepartments would be doing it?
That's a rather misguided comment and inaccurate too. Most of the people living in that tower (and similar) will be in employment and a lot of the flats will be owner occupied. Whilst originally built as council housing, lots of the these flats were sold off as part of the Right To Buy scheme. I don't have the exact breakdown to hand, but Kensington & Chelsea's own housing report is here.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,056
- Location
- La France
The same cunning ruse is used to call the eastern edge of Shepard's Bush "West Kensington'.
If you force all the poor families out of the capital then you create much poorer surrounding areas which entails many negative and criminal consequences
Just look at Paris and the problems they now have there with the poor borderline slums that now surrounds the capital thanks to gentrification
It is pretty much prime real estate, I'm not sure that a high rise like that has really served the community well, it was clearly dangerous and could have been sold/knocked down and better housing built elsewhere with the proceeds - given the proximity to Notting Hill this would be absolutely fine for re-developement
again no one is suggesting creating slums... we can go round in circles a bit here, my answer is the same as the post you just quoted. London is a big area, building more social housing in zones 3,4,5 doesn't necessitate creating slums or ghettos
"Clearly dangerous" you say? Not according to the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation who refused to listen to residents' concerns and allow an independent fire safety review.
And besides, it seems to have been made far more dangerous by a refurbishment that clad the building in flammable materials.
It boggles the mind that you would be trying to make a case for gentrification of "prime real estate" at such a time. Really?
owner occupied is rather different... this is part of the problem with right to buy... though again that is symptomatic of the issue re: expensive real estate being used inefficiently in this manner - there is a big incentive to sell it off for obvious reasons.
