The Grenfell Tower fire in London last Wednesday, which has left at least 79 people dead or presumed dead, may have been preventable with better oversight and renovation technology. But there is a strong reason why it wasn't prevented: High-rise buildings aren't suitable for public housing (often called social housing in the United Kingdom and Europe), and wherever they are used in this way, they are a source of danger.
The investigation is ongoing, but so far the facts of the Grenfell Tower case appear straightforward. Residents have long complained of inadequate fire safety in the 24-story building — power surges, insufficient and outdated firefighting equipment, an insufficient frequency of inspections. In response, they received at least one lawyerly demand that they take down blog posts.
Last year, the building was refurbished, receiving new windows, heating and ventilation systems — and also new, cheap plastic-and-aluminum-based exterior cladding, the same type that was responsible for a similar quick upward-spreading fire in a Melbourne apartment block in 2014. The local government, which owns the building, splashed out on the cladding to spruce up the grim-looking tower, built in 1974, because it was tall and visible from anywhere in the affluent area — Kensington, where the average rent on a one-bedroom apartment runs to £1,900 ($2,400) a month, compared with an average rent of £1,295 ($1,650) a month for London as a whole.
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.