Conclusion: Brexit, Viewed from Grenfell Tower

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Conclusion: Brexit, Viewed from Grenfell Tower Conclusion: Brexit, viewed from Grenfell Tower On 14th June 2017, a fire took hold of Grenfell Tower, a 24-storey high-rise in the Lancaster West Estate in North Kensington, London. At times approximating the temperature of an incinerator, the building smouldered for days afterwards. The tower was comprised of 129 flats, most of which were social housing managed by the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO). The official death toll of 71 residents remains hotly disputed by many witnesses and community members. But even this number still makes the event Britain’s deadliest structural fire since the beginning of the 20th century. So appallingly inept and callous was the local government response to the fire and its aftermath that within five days the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), one of the richest local councils in the country, had been side-lined at the highest level of government in favour of a “gold command”, which then coordinated the response. The intensity and spread of the fire, seemingly starting in one 4th floor flat, is widely attributed to the flammability of the cladding that was attached to the exterior of the building as part of an insulation upgrade between 2015 and 2016. An original contractor had been dropped by the Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) in favour of a cheaper competitor. Building experts warned in 2014 that the material scheduled for Grenfell Tower had to be used in tandem with non-combustible cladding (Prescod and Renwick 2017). Nonetheless, a cladding that featured superior fire resistance was ruled out due to cost, and a sub-standard type fitted instead. Ultimately, RBKC’s building control team certified that work complied with “relevant provisions” (Prescod and Renwick 2017). Many community members, leaders and activists have criticised the proposed terms of the public inquiry into Grenfell Tower, which focuses on the immediate causes of the fire, the responsibilities of the local authority, and the local and national response. They argue that the wider context of gentrification must frame any investigation. Taking this prompt, I want to connect Grenfell to the racialization of the undeserving poor that I have presented in this book. It will be remembered that as far back as the second half of the nineteenth century, middle-class philanthropists and policy makers had become obsessed with the dysgenic effects of urban slums and poor housing. Fast-forward to the post-war national compact, and housing had become the prime element through which the provision of social assistance was politicized and racialized, with Black commonwealth citizens considered incompetent to look after public stock. By the end of the Thatcher era, the council estate had become synonymous with the white underclass and in more general terms with the undeserving poor. Tony Blair subsequently chose to launch his war against “social exclusion” from the Aylesbury estate in South London. While Philip Blond’s high-minded Red Tory philosophy identified in estates the civic collapse of indigenous working-class culture. In the aftermath of the 2011 uprisings and riots, David Cameron intonated that estates bred cultures that glorified in violence. Originally, social housing was intended to be occupied by a cross-section of society. But Thatcher’s introduction of a right for residents to buy social housing in 1979 induced a trend whereby the poorest who could not afford to buy have remained in occupation whilst at the same time expenditure on social housing has consistently declined. This trend has only intensified in the years of austerity that have accompanied the global financial crisis. Between 2009 and 2015, capital commitment by government towards building homes has decreased from 0.7% (GBP 11.4 billion) to 0.2% (GBP5.3 billion) of GDP (“How Public Money Is Spent on Housing” n.d.). Nevertheless, local councils still retain a duty to find accommodation for vulnerable residents. Housing benefit paid to private landlords for this purpose has risen dramatically despite costs to local councils being approximately 23% greater. Not only the physical stock but the very principles of managing social housing have transformed. When New Labour introduced the decent homes standard, leading the way to the refurbishment of most social housing between 2000 and 2010, they introduced a conditionality. In order to fund their upgrade, residents would need to agree to the management function being transferred from the direct control of their local authority to a housing association or registered social landlord who could then access private funding (Hanley 2017). More recently, the Localism Act of 2011 has enabled local government to set its own guidelines as to how to manage waiting lists. Some of the new innovations at local level have included workfare elements, such as making volunteering a criterion for registry (Koksal 2014). Meanwhile, the government has pushed to fix tenancies between two and five years, making provisions far more mutable and much less certain (Stephens et al. 2016). Additionally, government has recently introduced a new “affordable rent” category that offers housing associations lower grants but permits them to raise rents to up to 80% of market levels. These changes have empowered/compelled social housing management organizations to make resident selection more contingent on deserving/underserving distinctions at the same time as shortening tenancies and increasing rents. I would argue, then, that social housing sector can be considered exemplary of the wider shifts in welfare provision authored by New Labour and Conservatives and described in chapter six. Grenfell Tower’s management organization must be assessed as part of this broader context marked by increased contingency and moral adjudication of public provisions alongside their steady marketisation. KCTMO was formed in 1996 with the transfer of the borough’s entire social housing stock - approximately 9700 homes at the time. Although KCTMO is non-profit, as an arms-length management organization it has absorbed millions of pounds a year in management fees and interest charges, leaving approximately just one pound in three collected from rent for maintenance and repairs (Ebrahimi 2017). What is more, in an extremely unequal borough such as Kensington and Chelsea, KCTMO helps to functionally separate provision for the poor (social housing) from resources for the affluent. Indeed, Grenfell residents report that KCTMO usually treated them with contempt, even going so far as to issue cease and desist orders against the most persistent critics of its management practices (Prescod and Renwick 2017). Of especial importance is the Grenfell Action Group, which for many years called attention to the problems that ultimately led to the catastrophic fire (grenfellactiongroup 2017). In all these ways, KCTMO provides an extreme example of the way in which public accountability between tenant/citizen, local authority and national government has been significantly compromised by the long-term decline of and more recent management transformations in social housing. This fatal mal-management of Grenfell Tower must be contextualised within longer-term processes of gentrification and social cleansing. This is no conspiracy theory. A freedom of information request revealed that in 2010 RBKC put together a redevelopment plan that proposed bulldozing the entire Lancaster West estate on which Grenfell sits (Prescod and Renwick 2017). More recently, the council leased North Kensington library to a private school, and has planned to demolish the building which houses the Kensington and Chelsea College of Further Education in order to build a private housing development (Gentleman 2017). All these issues – managerial, governmental, economic etc – have led to a deterioration in accountability for the provision of public goods. And such accountability has especially been eroded by national government’s desire to cut regulation. Since the creation of Tony Blair’s Better Regulation Task Force, “better” has meant “less” (Cobham 2017). The most recent Conservative Manifesto in 2017 affirmed a continued commitment to the same project. The One-in-Two-Out rule endorsed by the Manifesto espouses the principle that for every new piece of regulation introduced, two existing pieces should be rescinded. The manifesto also supported the Red Tape Challenge, which effectively claims that excess regulation has eroded the self-help principle practiced by responsible citizens. The Challenge encourages individuals and organizations to proactively inform government of any red-tape that stands in their way (“About Red Tape Challenge” 2015). Prior to the 14th June fire, the Grenfell Action Group had become concerned with the findings of the Lakanal House fire in 2009, where 6 people (including 3 children) died in a 14-storey South London social housing block. The inquest found that a number of renovations had removed fire-stopping material and that safety inspections by Southwark council had not identified the problem (Wainwright and Walker 2017). At the time, the coroner of the Lakanal House case called for a review of part B of the Building Regulations, which covers fire safety. This part was last reviewed in 2006 even though the intervening years have seen constant innovations in building technology and materials. Housing minister Gavin Barwell reported to the House of Commons in October 2016 that the government would indeed be reviewing Part B (Barnes 2017). But no review was forthcoming up until the events of June 14th. Once partially comprised of slum housing, North Kensington now includes some of the most valuable real estate in Britain. The network of community activists and organizations in the local area who have resisted mal-management, gentrification, social cleansing and deregulation are part of an historical struggle over meaningful community control of the area’s redevelopment. They consider the Grenfell fire to be a seminal and galvanising moment in this struggle. Take, for instance, the Westway: an elevated motorway originally built in the late 1960s which cuts through the borough just north of Grenfell Tower.
Recommended publications
  • Residential Update
    Residential update UK Residential Research | January 2018 South East London has benefitted from a significant facelift in recent years. A number of regeneration projects, including the redevelopment of ex-council estates, has not only transformed the local area, but has attracted in other developers. More affordable pricing compared with many other locations in London has also played its part. The prospects for South East London are bright, with plenty of residential developments raising the bar even further whilst also providing a more diverse choice for residents. Regeneration catalyst Pricing attraction Facelift boosts outlook South East London is a hive of residential Pricing has been critical in the residential The outlook for South East London is development activity. Almost 5,000 revolution in South East London. also bright. new private residential units are under Indeed pricing is so competitive relative While several of the major regeneration construction. There are also over 29,000 to many other parts of the capital, projects are completed or nearly private units in the planning pipeline or especially compared with north of the river, completed there are still others to come. unbuilt in existing developments, making it has meant that the residential product For example, Convoys Wharf has the it one of London’s most active residential developed has appealed to both residents potential to deliver around 3,500 homes development regions. within the area as well as people from and British Land plan to develop a similar Large regeneration projects are playing further afield. number at Canada Water. a key role in the delivery of much needed The competitively-priced Lewisham is But given the facelift that has already housing but are also vital in the uprating a prime example of where people have taken place and the enhanced perception and gentrification of many parts of moved within South East London to a more of South East London as a desirable and South East London.
    [Show full text]
  • Neighbourhoods in England Rated E for Green Space, Friends of The
    Neighbourhoods in England rated E for Green Space, Friends of the Earth, September 2020 Neighbourhood_Name Local_authority Marsh Barn & Widewater Adur Wick & Toddington Arun Littlehampton West and River Arun Bognor Regis Central Arun Kirkby Central Ashfield Washford & Stanhope Ashford Becontree Heath Barking and Dagenham Becontree West Barking and Dagenham Barking Central Barking and Dagenham Goresbrook & Scrattons Farm Barking and Dagenham Creekmouth & Barking Riverside Barking and Dagenham Gascoigne Estate & Roding Riverside Barking and Dagenham Becontree North Barking and Dagenham New Barnet West Barnet Woodside Park Barnet Edgware Central Barnet North Finchley Barnet Colney Hatch Barnet Grahame Park Barnet East Finchley Barnet Colindale Barnet Hendon Central Barnet Golders Green North Barnet Brent Cross & Staples Corner Barnet Cudworth Village Barnsley Abbotsmead & Salthouse Barrow-in-Furness Barrow Central Barrow-in-Furness Basildon Central & Pipps Hill Basildon Laindon Central Basildon Eversley Basildon Barstable Basildon Popley Basingstoke and Deane Winklebury & Rooksdown Basingstoke and Deane Oldfield Park West Bath and North East Somerset Odd Down Bath and North East Somerset Harpur Bedford Castle & Kingsway Bedford Queens Park Bedford Kempston West & South Bedford South Thamesmead Bexley Belvedere & Lessness Heath Bexley Erith East Bexley Lesnes Abbey Bexley Slade Green & Crayford Marshes Bexley Lesney Farm & Colyers East Bexley Old Oscott Birmingham Perry Beeches East Birmingham Castle Vale Birmingham Birchfield East Birmingham
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 09 19 South Lambeth Estate
    LB LAMBETH EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT August 2018 SOUTH LAMBETH ESTATE REGENERATION PROGRAMME www.ottawaystrategic.co.uk $es1hhqdb.docx 1 5-Dec-1810-Aug-18 Equality Impact Assessment Date August 2018 Sign-off path for EIA Head of Equalities (email [email protected]) Director (this must be a director not responsible for the service/policy subject to EIA) Strategic Director or Chief Exec Directorate Management Team (Children, Health and Adults, Corporate Resources, Neighbourhoods and Growth) Procurement Board Corporate EIA Panel Cabinet Title of Project, business area, Lambeth Housing Regeneration policy/strategy Programme Author Ottaway Strategic Management Ltd Job title, directorate Contact email and telephone Strategic Director Sponsor Publishing results EIA publishing date EIA review date Assessment sign off (name/job title): $es1hhqdb.docx 2 5-Dec-1810-Aug-18 LB Lambeth Equality Impact Assessment South Lambeth Estate Regeneration Programme Independently Reported by Ottaway Strategic Management ltd August 2018 Contents EIA Main Report 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 4 2 Introduction and context ....................................................................................... 12 3 Summary of equalities evidence held by LB Lambeth ................................................ 17 4 Primary Research: Summary of Household EIA Survey Findings 2017 ........................ 22 5 Equality Impact Assessment ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Intouniversity Works with Universities to Provide Local Learning Centres Where Young People Are Inspired to Achieve
    IntoUniversity works with universities to provide local learning centres where young people are inspired to achieve. IntoUniversity Oxford South East Annual Report Prepared for Christ Church, Oxford and the University of Oxford 2019/20 Chief Executive Introduction I am very pleased to be able to thank Christ Church, Oxford and the University of Oxford for their support of IntoUniversity. Our work is only made possible by the generous support and investment from partners such as yourselves and I am delighted to present this report on the performance of IntoUniversity Oxford South East for 2019/20. This report provides details of delivery to young people that took place prior to the national lockdown. In March we took the difficult decision to close temporarily all IntoUniversity centres and they remained closed for the rest of the academic year. Inevitably, this means we did not reach all of our targets for 2019/20. For further information, please see programme output tables Dr Rachel Carr OBE at the back of the report. Despite the centre closures, we were determined to continue providing support to our students remotely, and we immediately embarked on a response to the lockdown, quickly adapting our offer of support; you can find more information on how we did this later in the report. We are delighted that our centres were able to re-open for our young people in September for the 2021/21 academic year, with strict social distancing measures in place. The COVID-19 crisis was certainly an unprecedented challenge, but much has been achieved by IntoUniversity in the 2019/20 academic year.
    [Show full text]
  • Why We Have 'Mixed Communities' Policies and Some Difficulties In
    Notes for Haringey Housing and Regeneration Scrutiny Panel Dr Jane Lewis London Metropolitan University April 3rd 2017 Dr Jane Lewis • Dr Jane Lewis is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology and Social Policy at London Metropolitan University. She has worked previously as a lecturer in urban regeneration and in geography as well as in urban regeneration and economic development posts in local government in London. Jane has wide experience teaching at under-graduate and post-graduate levels with specific expertise in urban inequalities; globalisation and global inequalities; housing and urban regeneration policy and is course leader of the professional doctorate programme in working lives and of masters’ courses in urban regeneration and sustainable cities dating back to 2005.Jane has a research background in cities and in urban inequalities, urban regeneration policy and economic and labour market conditions and change. aims • 1. Invited following presentation Haringey Housing Forum on concerns relating to council estate regeneration schemes in London in name of mixed communities polices • 2. Senior Lecturer Social Policy at LMU (attached note) • 3. Terms of reference of Scrutiny Panel focus on 1and 2 – relating to rehousing of council tenants in HDV redevelopments and to 7 – equalities implications Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV) and Northumberland Park • ‘development projects’ proposed for the first phase of the HDV include Northumberland Park Regeneration Area – includes 4 estates, Northumberland Park estate largest • Northumberland Park
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. – UK 'Special Relationship' – a Bond That Has Endured for Decades
    E-ISSN 2281-4612 Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Vol 5 No 3 ISSN 2281-3993 MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy November 2016 U.S. – UK ‘Special Relationship’ – A Bond that has Endured for Decades Alketa Dumani PhD. Candidate, “Aleksander Moisiu” University [email protected] Doi:10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n3p45 Abstract United States and United Kingdom have based their relations on common cultural and historical links and, as Winston Churchill first articulated the notion of a ‘special relationship’, both countries share traditions, values, interests, and institutions of national and international nature. Although the basic elements were important in formulation of the special relationship, there have been a lot of disagreements between the two countries. The aim of this paper is to analyze the ups and downs of the ‘special relationship. There are arguments that this relationship is not so special and many say that it is in jeopardy and this relationship has been the subject of much mockery and criticism, as UK power and capacity has diminished and the U.S. has become more dominant, particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This paper argues that, in spite of what analysts maintain, this ‘special relationship’ should continue, because America and Britain need each other. This paper is written in the historical comparative method aiming at giving a general overview of this relationship. Different from other countries in the world, with which America is looking for other special relationships, Britain has the same commitment to peace, freedom and democracy, and it is willing to fight and stand for these values.
    [Show full text]
  • Grenfell Mediawatch Report: What, Where, When Justice?
    Grenfell MediaWatch Report: What, Where, When JUSTICE? The Government RBKC Councillors Decision-making Accountability Responsibility LFB Risk Assessments Fire Safety Residents Listening Policies and Procedures Job Descriptions Communication Building Regulations Materials Regulations Reporting Guidelines Action Death Toll Public Health Fire Emergency Protocols Ballots Salaries Budgets Investments Criminal Investigations Paperwork Media Reporting Fuel Poverty Tax Consultants Lawyers Developers Panel Members Experts Meetings Living Poverty Action Homelessness Mental Health Fraud Freedom of Information Fines Public Inquiry Select Committees Deniability Housing Community Ownership Location The School Community Spaces Charities Volunteers Community Initiatives Cost Sentencing Representation Public Money Hierarchy Bureaucracy The Law Amendments Pain Judgement Numbers Reparations History …. to name a few…. 72 June 2019 In remembrance of the Grenfell Tower community Including those that lost their lives, the survivors, family and friends About Grenfell MediaWatch Grenfell MediaWatch (GMW), is a group of volunteer Citizen Journalists formed in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017. Our group is unfunded and includes volunteer members from North Kensington and across the UK. Using our collective skills and grassroots experience, we use the tactic of monitoring and critiquing national, regional and local media to counter the misrepresentation of community issues. Together we collect, analyse, report and share information by creating openly biased content, in service of the community. We are committed to Malcolm's "make it plain" philosophy. This report was produced by the Grenfell MediaWatch team of Amma, Angie, Anu, Dawn, Isis, Jay, Oleander, Sophia, Toyin Please credit any content use to GMW and contact us if you would like to provide feedback or collaborate.
    [Show full text]
  • The London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2017
    The London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2017 Part of the London Plan evidence base COPYRIGHT Greater London Authority November 2017 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk 2017 LONDON STRATEGIC HOUSING LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT Contents Chapter Page 0 Executive summary 1 to 7 1 Introduction 8 to 11 2 Large site assessment – methodology 12 to 52 3 Identifying large sites & the site assessment process 53 to 58 4 Results: large sites – phases one to five, 2017 to 2041 59 to 82 5 Results: large sites – phases two and three, 2019 to 2028 83 to 115 6 Small sites 116 to 145 7 Non self-contained accommodation 146 to 158 8 Crossrail 2 growth scenario 159 to 165 9 Conclusion 166 to 186 10 Appendix A – additional large site capacity information 187 to 197 11 Appendix B – additional housing stock and small sites 198 to 202 information 12 Appendix C - Mayoral development corporation capacity 203 to 205 assigned to boroughs 13 Planning approvals sites 206 to 231 14 Allocations sites 232 to 253 Executive summary 2017 LONDON STRATEGIC HOUSING LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT Executive summary 0.1 The SHLAA shows that London has capacity for 649,350 homes during the 10 year period covered by the London Plan housing targets (from 2019/20 to 2028/29). This equates to an average annualised capacity of 64,935 homes a year.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Is Council Housing For?
    ‘We thought it was Buckingham Palace’ ‘Homes for Heroes’ Cottage Estates Dover House Estate, Putney, LCC (1919) Cottage Estates Alfred and Ada Salter Wilson Grove Estate, Bermondsey Metropolitan Borough Council (1924) Tenements White City Estate, LCC (1938) Mixed Development Somerford Grove, Hackney Metropolitan Borough Council (1949) Neighbourhood Units The Lansbury Estate, Poplar, LCC (1951) Post-War Flats Spa Green Estate, Finsbury Metropolitan Borough Council (1949) Berthold Lubetkin Post-War Flats Churchill Gardens Estate, City of Westminster (1951) Architectural Wars Alton East, Roehampton, LCC (1951) Alton West, Roehampton, LCC (1953) Multi-Storey Housing Dawson’s Heights, Southwark Borough Council (1972) Kate Macintosh The Small Estate Chinbrook Estate, Lewisham, LCC (1965) Low-Rise, High Density Lambeth Borough Council Central Hill (1974) Cressingham Gardens (1978) Camden Borough Council Low-Rise, High Density Branch Hill Estate (1978) Alexandra Road Estate (1979) Whittington Estate (1981) Goldsmith Street, Norwich City Council (2018) Passivhaus Mixed Communities ‘The key to successful communities is a good mix of people: tenants, leaseholders and freeholders. The Pepys Estate was a monolithic concentration of public housing and it makes sense to break that up a bit and bring in a different mix of incomes and people with spending power.’ Pat Hayes, LB Lewisham, Director of Regeneration You have castrated communities. You have colonies of low income people, living in houses provided by the local authorities, and you have the higher income groups living in their own colonies. This segregation of the different income groups is a wholly evil thing, from a civilised point of view… We should try to introduce what was always the lovely feature of English and Welsh villages, where the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and the farm labourer all lived in the same street – the living tapestry of a mixed community.
    [Show full text]
  • Territorial Stigmatisation and Poor Housing at a London `Sink Estate'
    Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803) 2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 20–33 DOI: 10.17645/si.v8i1.2395 Article Territorial Stigmatisation and Poor Housing at a London ‘Sink Estate’ Paul Watt Department of Geography, Birkbeck, University of London, London, WC1E 7HX, UK; E-Mail: [email protected] Submitted: 4 August 2019 | Accepted: 9 December 2019 | Published: 27 February 2020 Abstract This article offers a critical assessment of Loic Wacquant’s influential advanced marginality framework with reference to research undertaken on a London public/social housing estate. Following Wacquant, it has become the orthodoxy that one of the major vectors of advanced marginality is territorial stigmatisation and that this particularly affects social housing es- tates, for example via mass media deployment of the ‘sink estate’ label in the UK. This article is based upon a multi-method case study of the Aylesbury estate in south London—an archetypal stigmatised ‘sink estate.’ The article brings together three aspects of residents’ experiences of the Aylesbury estate: territorial stigmatisation and dissolution of place, both of which Wacquant focuses on, and housing conditions which he neglects. The article acknowledges the deprivation and various social problems the Aylesbury residents have faced. It argues, however, that rather than internalising the extensive and intensive media-fuelled territorial stigmatisation of their ‘notorious’ estate, as Wacquant’s analysis implies, residents have largely disregarded, rejected, or actively resisted the notion that they are living in an ‘estate from hell,’ while their sense of place belonging has not dissolved. By contrast, poor housing—in the form of heating breakdowns, leaks, infes- tation, inadequate repairs and maintenance—caused major distress and frustration and was a more important facet of their everyday lives than territorial stigmatisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy
    Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy How do democracies form and what makes them die? Daniel Ziblatt revisits this timely and classic question in a wide-ranging historical narrative that traces the evolution of modern political democracy in Europe from its modest beginnings in 1830s Britain to Adolf Hitler’s 1933 seizure of power in Weimar Germany. Based on rich historical and quantitative evidence, the book offers a major reinterpretation of European history and the question of how stable political democracy is achieved. The barriers to inclusive political rule, Ziblatt finds, were not inevitably overcome by unstoppable tides of socioeconomic change, a simple triumph of a growing middle class, or even by working class collective action. Instead, political democracy’s fate surprisingly hinged on how conservative political parties – the historical defenders of power, wealth, and privilege – recast themselves and coped with the rise of their own radical right. With striking modern parallels, the book has vital implications for today’s new and old democracies under siege. Daniel Ziblatt is Professor of Government at Harvard University where he is also a resident fellow of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also currently Fernand Braudel Senior Fellow at the European University Institute. His first book, Structuring the State: The Formation of Italy and Germany and the Puzzle of Federalism (2006) received several prizes from the American Political Science Association. He has written extensively on the emergence of democracy in European political history, publishing in journals such as American Political Science Review, Journal of Economic History, and World Politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Khadija Saye
    THE ART NEWSPAPER Number 292, July/August 2017 47 Obituary Khadija Saye A series of self-portraits by Khadija Saye (1992-2017) are now on show in the Diaspora Pavilion, a collateral event in this year’s Venice Biennale, the opening of which the artist attended in May. Saye and her Gambian- born mother, Mary Mendy, died in the Grenfell Tower fire in west London on 14 June. As a memorial to the artist and all the victims of the disaster, which claimed at least 79 lives, Tate Britain displayed a print from Saye’s final series, Dwelling: in this space we breathe (2017). The artistNicola Green, the gallery director Ingrid Swenson and her husband, Andrew Wilson, who is a Tate curator, share their memories of the young artist. hadija Saye completed her photography she had a caring eye that was fitting photography degree in 2013 for her chosen subject of portraiture. After her and, as an aspiring artist, did internship she was employed to interview and a variety of paid work, which photograph visitors to PEER’s reopening exhibi- fed into her growing knowl- tion by Angela de la Cruz. The resulting pictures, edge of art and broadened produced as a poster, are evidence of her sensitive her networks. As part of this and compassionate eye, and as she said later, she joined up to Creative Access, a London-based “breaking down barriers—which is something I Kcharity that promotes diversity within the strive to pursue within my career”. creative industries by providing work experience for young people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds through a range of paid BLOSSOMING OF AN ARTIST internship programme partnerships.
    [Show full text]