Comment on We must end rough sleeping but hostile architecture must go too
IcePee@lemmy.beru.co 1 week ago
The same incentive to dislodge the homeless is the same reason they put sub par cladding on Grenfell. To remove the unsightly poor through obfuscation. Don’t want the well heeled getting pangs of conscience.
What about the ordinary residents of Notting Hill? Should they have to be reminded every day of the fire and death? Should they have to risk bits of debris falling off? Should a building with no windows be left exposed to the weather? Just so that the well-heeled have to suffer the same reminder as the poors, it sounds like?
The difference between hostile architecture and cladding Grenfell is that covering Grenfell serves practical purposes.
At the risk of being a stinking pedant, the cladding didn’t cause the fire. According to the enquiry, it was likely caused by a Hotpoint fridge freezer’s dodgy wiring. However, the cladding gave it all the fuel and protection the fire needed to turn it from a relatively manageable kitchen fire to a towering inferno.
AviAdi@lemmy.world 1 week ago
That’s my issue with hostile architecture. I live in los Angeles. The homeless here are struggling and need material help, but to many they are deemed like animals that need to be chased away. I regularly hear people talk about the homeless as if they are an inconvenience instead of people suffering. The lack of empathy is mind boggling. I’m only one guy, what can my dumbass do though?