London fire

Very good news.

What an absolute relief for some of those made homeless. I assume as it is social housing these will be permanent homes?

Very glad to hear that GT residents are to be rehoused locally. However, don't be thinking that they will be living in the 'luxury apartments'. All new developments are legally obliged to include an element of 'social housing'. It is the social housing flats in this luxury development which the GT residents will be rehoused in.

This isn't to say that they won't be perfectly adequate homes, nor is it a 'class envy' whinge about differing treatment of the rich and the poor. I just think that we should be aware that it is 'social housing', probably of a quite different standard from the 'luxury' flats, as I fear the rightwing press could well spin it as the GT victims 'living in luxury'. Which they won't be.

Social housing tenants in these developments may not be allowed to use 'luxury' facilities and could well have a separate entrance, tucked into some unobtrusive corner of the building.

For example:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2951203/Keep-grass-Social-housing-tenants-new-London-development-told-stay-away-garden-reserved-owners-15m-luxury-apartments.html

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/25/poor-doors-segregation-london-flats

One from the Mail and one from the Guardian. How's that for 'balance'

I doubt anybody thought they would be given luxury flats, and the developments of flats that you describe have been around for a little while.A lot nicer than Grenfell Tower though, and in Kensington too.

Fair enough, it's life,we get what we pay for. I would strongly object to segregated public parks. am now fed up of the media playing on the rich and poor divide

Oh that dreadful separate door Maizie - I have heard this referred to as the 'poor door'. Needlessly unpleasant.

This sounds like what was needed. More!

maizie I think this is happening in a number of developments as part of the planning application.

What has happened though over a hundred housing units have disappeared as a result of the dreadful austerity disaster. I fervently hope that this will be rectified very quickly.

I mean more flats, enough for all.

The media have been a little disingenuous ( or sloppy?) in reporting on this. Kensington Row is apparently a development of two blocks of luxury flats and two blocks of flats built as social housing. It is in the latter two that the 68 flats will be allocated. This is clearly excellent news and shows what can be done when there's a political will to do it, despite the initial belief that it would be impossible to find permanent homes for them locally. Where the press is being disingenuous is in talking about the whole development as a 'luxury' development and mentioning the concierge, the cinema and the swimming pool. You might almost think they had an agenda in so doing. Perish the thought. But it must be a real relief to have this now to look forward to and they are hoping to have them ready in July I believe

So no poor door?

No poor door, but no access to the 'luxury' facilities either.

I'm not trying to make an issue of this, just a bit worried that at some time the perception that they have been rehoused in 'luxury' apartments might be turned against them.

Like this rather horrible piece:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1025438/Pictured-The-luxury-council-flats-rented-tenants-just-75-week.html

Some people on GN must be very disappointed that there is no "poor door".

My dads little LA bungalow is luxurious! Recently refurbished and modernised to a VERY high standard indeed.

Some people on GN must be very disappointed that there is no "poor door"

Oh, FFS, grow up and stop sniping.

Whitewave, it just said on the news that they will be permanently rehoused there.

This is interesting about Grenfell Tower and electrical faults.

kittysjones.wordpress.com/2017/06/21/dangerous-electrical-faults-were-historically-ignored-at-glenfell-tower/

dj how lovely for them!! From a tatty poorly maintained home to a lovely new one. Tragic what happened in between though.

Will we now have a campaign for poor doors to be fitted ?

I'm sorry annie can you explain that about a campaign for poor doors? I think I've missed something

Some people on GN must be very disappointed that there is no "poor door".

Haven't we seen enough of these nasty personal attacks. Of course people will not be disappointed. Personally I am glad the outcry about the ones that did these has been heard and this way of designing such flats has been changed.

Will we now have a campaign for poor doors to be fitted ?

Gfery! If ignoring someone is not acceptable neither should goading people be and no, after yesterday this is not funny.

Two dofferent worlds.

kittysjones.wordpress.com/2017/06/17/grenfell-inequality-and-the-conservatives-bonfire-of-red-tape/

Note the two Mail headlines.

Yes GG the issue previously about poor doors was that it was structurally one building - my understanding is that this development is four separate blocks and all will have their own main front entrances - no poor doors down the side alley for example. Of course the luxury blocks will have their own high end facilities. Why on earth would they not? What matters is the quality and standard of the social housing flats - they must surely be better than GT. In a free market economy, there will always be inequalities - what I think matters is not that the luxury flats have a pool but that the social housing flats are dry, warm and safe.

Funny how you don't notice these things.

Different, I meant, not dofferent. No idea what that means.

They have shown it on the news Rigby - with an aerial view. There is a centre privately owned block/blocks (difficult to see) and two social housing blocks with one either side. I agree that they just need good housing. I for one have never expected equality of outcome; I think we would be waiting a long time for that . Equality of opportunity is all I ask for.

Kensington has been 2 different worlds for a long time.
In 1952-3 I did a placement there as a student SW (I trained as an EP later, couldn't take the stress of being an SW.)
I can't remember a lot about it except for 2 examples. One, in South Ken., was an elderly man from the "gentry" who was living in a very comfortable retirement flat and had health and financial problems.
The other was a large family in the north of the borough who were having support from the Family Service Unit, which no longer exists.
I don't think the highrise blocks were built then.