Grenfell Tower Was a Death Trap. Some Wanted It to Stand as a Warning.

For nearly eight years, wrapped in white and crowned with green hearts, Grenfell Tower has stood as a tragic monument to the worst residential fire in the post-World War II history of Britain. On Friday, the government confirmed it would demolish the building, where 72 people died in a blaze that a public inquiry blamed on a lethal combination of negligence, cost-cutting and deregulation.

The decision, by the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, divided families of the victims when she told them of it on Wednesday, in advance of the official announcement. Some condemned the plan to tear down the building before justice had been meted out to those responsible for the disaster; others conceded the tower could not stand in its present state indefinitely.

The anguished debate over Grenfell Tower echoes those over the sites of other tragedies, such as the 9/11 attacks in New York City and Washington or the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, where ruined structures become sacred ground, steeped in symbolism and memory.

Ms. Rayner said the demolition would be carried out methodically over two years behind the protective wrapping. Parts of the tower, and material from it, will be preserved so they can become part of a future memorial. The carefully worded statement, issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, tried to navigate the emotional crosscurrents of the debate.

“The tower was the home of the 72 innocent people who lost their lives, and of survivors whose lives were forever changed,” the statement said. “It is clear from conversations it remains a sacred site. It is also clear that there is not a consensus about what should happen to it.”

The government might well have been alluding to the reaction after Ms. Rayner’s meeting with survivors and families of the victims when she informed them of the decision. One of the groups, Grenfell United, accused her of ignoring their views and claimed there was little support in the room for tearing it down.

Karim Mussilhy, whose uncle, Hesham Rahman, perished in the fire, said the government had short-circuited the debate by asserting — wrongly, he claimed — that there was no alternative to demolishing the building completely.

“There’s no reason the tower needs to come all the way down,” Mr. Mussilhy said. “There are parts of it that can remain forever.”

But another group, Grenfell Next of Kin, said the focus should be on a memorial rather than preserving the blackened remains of the building. “Do we wish the whole tower could stand forever? Yes. Is that an option? Not from a structural point of view,” the group said. “Do we need a way forward? Yes.”

Although the building had been reinforced after the fire with thousands of props, structural engineers warned that it would continue to deteriorate. The government said that preserving multiple floors did not make sense from an engineering point of view. Even preserving a smaller number of floors, it said, would raise issues of equity with the families of victims.

“It would not be fair to keep some floors of the building that are significant to some families, whilst not being able to do so for others and knowing that, for some, this would be deeply upsetting,” the statement said.

Some have argued that the building should be preserved because it is, in effect, a crime scene. The public inquiry concluded that the disaster was caused by unscrupulous manufacturers, who supplied cheap, flammable cladding, which turned the tower into an inferno after it caught fire in the early hours of June 14, 2017.

The inquiry’s report also blamed the Conservative-led local council, which was eager to cut costs, as well as acquiescent contractors and the architecture firm that oversaw the 2015 renovation of the 24-floor building. Originally constructed in 1972, Grenfell Tower became a Brutalist landmark, near some of London’s most upscale neighborhoods.

In its statement, the government said it had consulted the police, the coroner’s office and the office of the public inquiry, all of which said they had what they needed to pursue investigations of the fire. The Metropolitan Police may not bring the first criminal charges in the case until 2027.

The treatment of sites where a tragic loss of life occurred has long been a fraught issue. After a truck bomb destroyed a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, there was a lively debate over about whether to preserve and display remnants of the ruined building as a monument to the 168 people killed there.

A small section of the building’s granite wall was preserved and integrated into a memorial. More symbolically, so was a segment of the chain-link fence that had surrounded the site for four years after the attack and became a repository for flowers, photos and other mementos left by visitors.

“These conversations are not about who’s right or who’s wrong,” said Edward T. Linenthal, an emeritus professor of history at Indiana University, who has advised memorial commissions on how to honor victims of terror attacks and mass shootings. “It’s about whose sensibilities you choose to honor, and why.”

In the case of Grenfell Tower, he said, the unresolved quest for justice adds another layer of complexity: While the fire was an accident not an attack, unlike in Oklahoma City or on Sept. 11, 2001, it has some of the same qualities.

“When there’s malfeasance of any kind involved — loose wiring, class issues, poor regulation by the authorities — that adds a sharpness to it,” Professor Linenthal said. “People died there who weren’t supposed to. Whatever they decide to do, it has to take time, and it has to be done carefully.”

Among the proposals for a memorial are a garden and a monument that would reach into the sky. Last month, the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission named a short list of five candidates to submit designs. It hopes to choose a winning team by the end of the summer and submit a detailed plan by the end of 2026.

In its ruined state, with the green hearts and the phrase “Grenfell, Forever in Our Hearts,” stamped at the top of the wrapped building, Grenfell Tower has become a different kind of landmark — a symbol of social inequality and the costs of rampant deregulation. To some, it is even a source of solace.

“Being able to see the tower every day helps some people continue to feel close to those they lost,” the government said. “For others, it is a painful reminder of what happened and is having a daily impact on some members of the community.”