# Talk:Trellick Tower

"However the brutalist architecture is now out of style and the building is still regarded by some Londoners as one of the ugliest in the city." - removed from the article as it's a POV without a source. Do we need "and critics of modern architecture think it's hideous!" on every article on a modern building? Secretlondon 16:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

There is pov praise too: "iconic". What's the source for that? This building is loathed and the article should refer to that. Not to do so is manifestly biased. The articles about modern buidlings should not be controlled by modernists. Bhoeble 20:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there a website for the residents association? You may also want to refer to another now residential Goldfinger building in London, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fleming_House

This page states 217 - but the housingprototypes link says 317 - Anyone know which is correct?
Definitely 217 - I've delivered leaflets to all of them! Docben 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

hejka, a mówi ktoś tu po polsku? xD  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.238.238.209 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC) 

Goldfinger designed the building to have one but it was removed for cost reasons. When the new tenants association took over it was 
finally introduced. Slight difference to the way the article has it. 16:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.200.200 (talk)  

I removed the references. I don't believe they have any affect on the original material and are simply miscellaneous information. The fact that a building was seen in a music video is a trivial fact. The same goes for television shows. [1] The section does not suggest removing trivia but it also does not suggest putting it there in the first place. The style manual does say to avoid these kinds of lists in the first place. TurtleMelody (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"local authorities were beginning to realise the social problems they caused"
I would suggest this is more complex than to say the buildings themselves caused the social problems. Seems like an opinion rather than a fact. No citation in either case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.225.8 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 

This edit claims the text is "unsourced", but the next source along, citing The Guardian piece includes "One Christmas, vandals on the 12th floor opened the fire hydrant and unleashed thousands of gallons of water into the lifts, blowing fuses and leaving the block without electricity, heat, water or toilet facilities. Grind up another three floors and you would be where a 27-year-old woman was dragged from the lift and raped". It's not pleasant, but it is sourced. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Hmm, that's weird. I removed it because when I checked the Guardian link it came back as a 404, so I took it out. Maybe the Guardian site was misbehaving. Happy it's back. GedUK  09:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

This article needs to explain who Trellick was. There is no mention of why it is named what it is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C409:DA00:8D86:2C31:DC17:3E0C (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC) 

Do you have a source that says why? I haven't been able to find one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)