Greenville was the trap of death. Some wanted to stand as a warning.

Nearly eight years ago, wrapped in white and crowned with green hearts, Grenfell Tower stood as a tragic monument to the worst residential fire in Britain’s history after World War II. On Friday, the government confirmed that it would destroy the building, as 72 people died in a fire in which a general investigation was died Murder Neglect, reduce costs and cancel restrictions.

The decision, by Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rainer, divided the families of the victims when they are Tell them From Wednesday, before the official announcement. Some condemned the building’s demolition plan before facing justice to those responsible for the disaster; Others acknowledged that the tower could not stand in its current state indefinitely.

The debate about the Greenville Tower is frequent at other tragedies, such as the September 11 attacks in New York City and Washington or the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, where the destroyed structures become sacred land, soaked in symbolism and memory.

Ms. Rainer said that the demolition would be used systematically over two years behind the protective wrapping. Parts of the tower will be preserved, and the materials of it, so that it can become part of a future memorial. Drafting carefully statementWhich was issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and the local government, attempted to move between the emotional currents of discussion.

The statement said: “The tower was home to the 72 bihadists who lost their lives, and the survivors whose lives changed forever.” “It is clear that it is still a sacred position. It is also clear that there is no consensus on what it should happen.”

The government may have hinted at the reaction after Mrs. Rainer’s meeting with the survivors and the families of the victims when he informed them of the decision. One group, Grenfell United, accused her of ignoring her views and claimed that there was nothing but little support in the room to tear it.

Karim Muslei, who was for his uncle, Hisham Al-Rahman, said in the fire that the government had reduced the circle of discussion through confirmation-on a mistake-that he claimed-that there was no alternative to the building completely destroying.

“There is no reason that the tower needs to decrease,” said Mr. Museili. “There are parts of it that can remain forever.”

But another group, Greenville next to the relatives, said that the focus should be on a memorial instead of maintaining the remains of the black building. “Do we hope that the entire tower will stand forever? Yes.”

Although the building was strengthened after the fire with thousands of supports, the engineers warned that it would continue to deteriorate. The government said that maintaining multiple floors was not logical from an engineering point of view. Even maintaining fewer floors, he said, would raise equity cases with the families of the victims.

The statement said: “It will not be fair to preserve some floors for the important building for some families, while the inability to do this for others and know that this will be very annoying for some.”

Some have argued that the building should be preserved because, in fact, the crime scene. The general investigation concluded that the catastrophe was caused by the unscrupulous manufacturers, who presented the cheap flammable cladding, which turned the tower into hell after it caught fire in the early hours of June 14, 2017.

The investigation report also blamed the governor’s local council, which was keen to reduce costs, as well as the excellent contractors and the architecture company that supervised the renewal of the 24 -storey building for the year 2015. Grenfell Tower was built in 1972, and became a brutal landmark, Near some of the high -end London neighborhoods.

In its statement, the government said that it had consulted the police, the office of the forensic doctor and the public investigation office, and all of them said they had what they need to follow up the investigations into the fire. The Capital Police may not attend the first criminal charges in the case until 2027.

The treatment of the sites where the tragic loss of life has always been a charged problem. After the truck bomb destroyed a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, there was a vital debate about whether the remains of the devastating building would be preserved and displayed as a memorial to 168 people who were killed there.

A small section of the building wall was preserved and integrated into a memorial. More in terms of symbolism, as well as part of the serial bonding fence that surrounded the site for four years after the attack and became a warehouse of flowers, photos and other souvenirs left by visitors.

Edward said. Lental, an honorary professor in history at the University of Indiana, who advised memorials about how to honor the victims of terrorist attacks and group shooting: “These talks are not related to who is right or wrong.” “It is related to the feelings of those you choose to honor and why.”

In the case of Greenville, he said, that the search that has not been solved to justice adds another layer of complexity: While the fire was an accident and not an attack, unlike Oklahoma City or on September 11, 2001, it contains some of the same characteristics.

Professor Linenthal said: “When there is misunderstanding of any kind – loose wires, class issues, and poor organization by the authorities – they add to it,” said Professor Linenthal. People died there it was not supposed to. Whatever they decide to do it, it should take time, and it must be done carefully. “

Among the suggestions of the memorial is a garden and a memorial monument that reaches the sky. Last month, the Greenville Tower Memorial Committee A short list of five candidates was named To present designs. She hopes to choose a winner team by the end of the summer and present a detailed plan by the end of 2026.

In its destructive state, with green hearts and the phrase “Grenfell, forever in our hearts”, it was sealed at the top of the wrapped building, Grenfell Tower became a different kind of landmark – a symbol of social inequality and outbreaks to cancel the restrictions. For some, it is even the source of condolences.

The government said: “The ability to see the tower every day helps some people continue to feel near those who have been lost.” “For others, it is a painful reminder of what happened and has a daily impact on some members of society.”