Living in Precarity: the Grenfell Tower fire

Precarity and the conditions that underpin precarious living are not arbitrary. Rather, they are the engineered products of prioritising the interests of the few over the many. Such precarious living was the reality of the residents of the Grenfell Tower, who in 2017 experienced one of the worst fires in the United Kingdom since the 19th century (MacLeod 2018). Exploring the Grenfell Tower fire as a case study reveals a poignant understanding of who has traditionally held and continues to hold power in London, and how they draw upon this power to strategically restructure the city through processes of gentrification. This process manifests in precarious living and is subsequently legitimised by moulding the discourses associated with gentrification through the production of ‘poverty propaganda’ (Shildrick 2018, p. 784). This essay analyses the connection between gentrification, precarious living and power by first offering a contextual insight into the Grenfell fire and locating this case study in broader understandings of wealth inequality and austerity politics in London. The relationship between space and power will subsequently be explored toexamine how the local politics of wealth formations are operating in urban spatial arenas to further entrench the precarity experienced by the poor. The discourses of poverty and gentrification orchestrated by the state will then be criticised as a political tool used to justify their inaction following the fire. The significance of these discourses in undermining government accountability by creating confusion as to the causes and consequences of precarity will also be discussed. Ultimately this essay asserts that the residents of Grenfell Tower were not only victims of a fire, but victims of a state who failed them by prioritising the interests of the wealthy elite while neglecting their duties to their structurally disadvantaged constituents.

I. UNDERSTANDING GRENFELL

In the early hours of 14 June 2017, a kitchen fire broke out on the fourth floor of a 24-storey residential housing block, Grenfell Tower. The London Fire Brigade arrived within six minutes of the original call, but by this point the fire had spread through a window and quickly climbed the building’s exterior cladding at a ‘terrifying rate’ (MacLeod 2018, p. 461). At the height of the fire, firefighters could only reach the twelfth floor and instructed residents to ‘stay put’ within their apartments until they could be evacuated (Lane 2018). This advice was later identified as one of the factors contributing to the high death count of the tragedy (Lane 2018). Most of the residents recall being warned not by fire alarms, but by their Muslim neighbours who had awoken for their morning prayers during the month of Ramadan (Shildrick 2018, p. 789). As a social housing estate, Grenfell was managed by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) local council and was home to a collection of diverse residents. Often these residents experienced significant vulnerability, with a significant portion identified as either migrants, refugees, or from a black and minority ethnic background (Baker-Jordan 2017). The official death count was held at 72, including a stillborn child. Yet even this figure is contested for not capturing the individuals who were not registered residents (Madden 2017, p. 2). The disaster displaced more than 200 households, only 62 of which were resettled by 2018 (Lane 2018). Three years later, seven displaced households remain in precarious temporary accommodation, while a further ten have requested to be rehoused as they were placed in unsuitable permanent housing (Bulman 2020). The protracted process of rehousing Grenfell residents is a further testament to the precariousness of the British property market.

The remnants of a burnt Grenfell Tower against the luxury buildings of the RBKC pushed a visceral image of London’s growing wealth inequality into the public imagination. The borough is the most expensive area to live in London, with the average cost of a house being £1.2 million (Gov UK 2018). With the presence of both luxury apartments and estate housing, the distinctive experiences of residents in the RBKC has often been referred to as a ‘tale of two cities’ (Atkinson et al. 2017). Existing inequalities have been accentuated by a strong austerity policy model developed under multiple terms of conservative administrations (Shildrick 2018). This model has seen significant cuts to public services with the growth of economic policies explicitly deployed to worsen the economic position of those in the lowest income bracket, and was ruled by the UN as a breach of international human rights (UN 2016). Amidst these austerity measures, residents from lower income brackets were often made to feel invisible. This is most evident in the RBKC’s lack of response to the demands of the Grenfell Tower Action Group, a collective headed by residents. Residents outlined the necessity for better ventilation systems, lifts and fire mains – all of which were significant factors in increasing the severity of the fire when it occurred in 2017 (Lane 2018). In a media release the group stated their firm belief that ‘only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord … and bring an end to the dangerous living conditions and neglect of health and safety legislation’ (Grenfell Action Group 2016).

II. POWER, PRECARITY AND SPACE

A study of the processes of gentrification in London reveals how the power of the state and wealthy elite is strategically manifested in the built environment of the city, while working to further structurally entrench the precarious housing of the urban poor. Though its definition is highly contested, Waley argues that where gentrification occurs, it adheres to at least three of the following processes: neighbourhood class conversion, the displacement of lower income residents, exploitation of rent gaps for profit, and the upgrading of properties and neighbourhoods (2016). According to this definition, Atkinson et al. posit that the processes occurring in London can be considered gentrification and argue further that the drastic changes in the city’s ‘skyline, ambience and economy’ has indexed the emergence of a ‘plutocratic city’ (2017, p. 180). The UK now houses more billionaires per capita compared to any other country, with most residing in London (Shildrick 2018, p. 786). This explosion of global elites sees the exertion of their power through their wealth, often mediated by compliant city governance, to enable the mass construction of high-rise towers and seamless mobility systems (Atkinson et al. 2018, p. 182). Government compliance is founded in the sentiment that the global plutocrats who ‘saved’ London’s housing market during the early stages of financial crisis must be accommodated and that such accommodation will foster future economic growth (Atkinson et al. 2018, p. 186). In reconfiguring the interests of the government to mirror the interests of private corporations, the state in London has become a driving force in gentrifying the city.

The fire at Grenfell is perhaps the strongest evidence of the grave implications of this new plutocratic model. This is epitomised when considering the motivations for the 2016 refurbishment of the tower and how local authorities have navigated issues of residential displacement. To the dismay of residents, the £8.7 million refurbishment package for Grenfell was not in response to the demands made to the RBKC. Rather, the rainscreen cladding, curtain wall facade and replacement windows were fitted to ‘modernise the exterior of the building’ (Todd 2018, p. 142). The cladding used in this refurbishment was later identified to have aggravated the severity of the fire, as the contracted construction company utilised a cheaper highly flammable material that is banned for use in the US and across Europe (Lane 2018). It is clear that the government was more concerned with delivering an image of modernity that was consistent with the rest of gentrified London as opposed to responding to the concerns of its constituents. The continued displacement of Grenfell residents, despite the availability of luxury real estate around the city, further denotes the choice of the state to prioritise the comfort of the wealthy elites at the expense of the livelihoods of the poor. This movement away from locally accountable and elected governance to ‘new organisational setups, ideally public-private partnerships’ is considered by Atkinson and colleagues as a hallmark of a gentrified neoliberal city (2016, p. 191).

III. DISCOURSES AND ‘POVERTY PROPAGANDA’

Gentrification not only occurs in the built environment of a space but also in the discourses used to justify this process. Agents of gentrification often control these discourses in order to confuse the public as to the causes and consequences of poverty and in doing so, sanitise themselves of responsibility or accountability (MacLeod 2018). These discourses operate both in the media and in political arenas, and rely on ideas that those who experience structural disadvantage or poverty are ‘workshy, lazy and culpable for their own predicaments’ (Shildrick 2018, p. 784). Shildrick describes this as ‘poverty propaganda’ and posits that these narratives can be so pervasive that they are subscribed to by both the general public, and even people experiencing deep poverty themselves (2018). Such is evident where London residents voiced resentment at Grenfell victims being rehoused in an affordable housing segment of nearby luxury apartments, asking: ‘why should they get this for free?’ (Shildrick 2018, p. 784). In internalising these discourses, the public locates the blame of the incident on individual behaviours as opposed to the state and subsequently become complicit in perpetuating ‘poverty propaganda’. Findings from Bhan’s study of gentrification and slums in Delhi affirms the significance of these changing discourses of citizenship and representations of the poor in justifying government inaction regarding the resettlement of slum dwellers (2009, p. 138). In controlling the discourses associated with gentrification and poverty those in power redefine who is worthy of support from the state.

In the British context, the capacity of the state in shaping the public imagination is vital in inhibiting the victims of Grenfell and their ability to demand accountability through the existing systems of political constitutionalism. The tradition of political constitutionalism in the UK necessitates that governments are held responsible for their actions through solely political mechanisms, as opposed to legal avenues (McCartan and Blewitt 2017, p. 23). Pursuing these mechanisms would already be difficult for most Grenfell residents in light of their existing structural advantage, but would be made virtually impossible if they were not emboldened by public opinion. While it is beyond the scope of this response to discuss comprehensively, there is also value in examining how the fire has occurred and been managed in a post-Brexit ideational context. Of particular relevance would be how sentiments of anti-immigration and isolationism potentially influenced how the public perceived Grenfell victims, given that a majority of residents were identified as having migrant or refugee background (MacLeod 2018). An exploration of this intersection of migration, race, class and citizenship would definitely enhance the existing literature concerned with the local politics of gentrification in London.

The overwhelming ‘poverty propaganda’ must not however detract from the attempts of residents of both Grenfell and London in exercising their agency and demanding a substantive response from governments. The months following Grenfell were marked with public protests and calls for action from disgruntled constituents (MacLeod 2018, p. 462). However, with the passing of the anniversary of the fire and the majority of the residents not yet settled in permanent housing, it is clear that there are marked difficulties in mobilising public support into political action. Poverty propaganda thus operates as a political tool that coerces ‘widespread consent for a political system that affords punishing…significant numbers of its citizens whilst continuing to bolster the weight and strength of the cushions that protect the few’ (Shildrick 2018, p. 789).

IV. CONCLUSION

The case study of Grenfell Tower intricately captures the conditions of precarious living that have been accentuated through processes of gentrification and the rise of London as a plutocratic city. Processes of gentrification and their implications represent a spatial materialisation of power and precarity within London’s built environment. This power has been exerted in strategic ways that cater to the interests of large-sale private companies, to the detriment of lower and middle-class Londoners. Moreover, the discourses of gentrification are utilised by the state to manipulate the public imagination to relieve themselves of accountability and culpability. Lopez-Morales argues theories of gentrification must be sensitive to the urban inequalities that are further intensified by the state’s response to large-scale private interests, as this could provide tools to understanding how local environments process change (2015, p. 572). The nexus of power, wealth and precarity embedded in the case study of Grenfell tower reveals how the state has directed their attention towards the wealthy global elite in London, leaving low income groups to rely on their own agency to demand accountability from a state who failed them.