Talk:Grenfell Tower

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Grenfell Tower and Morgan Grenfell?[edit]

Anyone know where the "Grenfell" in Grenfell Tower came from? Is there a link to banking firm "Morgan Grenfell" ? R. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.120.1 (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Grenfell Road, on which the Tower stands, was named for William Grenfell (Baron Desborough) who died in 1945, and who had nothing to do with the Bank. In any case, there is no connection between the Bank and the tower.--Everlong Day (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims that the road is named after Field Marshal Francis Wallace Grenfell, 1st Baron Grenfell, not William Grenfell (if it matters to anyone). --Ormewood (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)(talk) 22:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?[edit]

Is there enough coverage of this building, outside the fire, to justify a standalone article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a spin-off article Tower blocks in Great Britain which can cover general issues and mention individual tower blocks that don't have specific claims to notability. The fire article covers a wider range of issues than just the building itself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number of flats and bedrooms[edit]

According to the given reference, Grenfell Tower has actually had 127 flats, 227 bedrooms since the most recent refurbishment, as stated across the following 2 paragraphs (and figures 11, 17, 19, and 15): “

Grenfell Tower comprises 20 storeys of residential flats and four storeys of community/office spaces at podium level. It is roughly square in plan and the residential floors are identical: 4no. 2-bed flats – one on each corner –and 2no. 1-bed flats – one facing east and the other west. The north and south elevations are almost identical, as are the east and west.

” – §2 Site, Grenfell Tower (page 5). “

This proposal sees no change to the 20 floors of existing flats. New residential properties are proposed at the Walkway +1 and Mezzanine levels. Large family homes have been identified as a priority need and four are proposed at Walkway +1 and three at Mezzanine – seven in total.

” – §3 Use, Residential (page 6). The number of bedrooms in the flats at these 2 repurposed levels can be seen in the floorplans of §5 Layout in figures 19 and 17, respectively.

    Summary:

  • 1-bedroom flats: 40 flats, 40 bedrooms;
  • 2-bedroom flats: 80 flats, 160 bedrooms;
  • Total existing: 120 flats, 200 bedrooms;
  • 3-bedroom flats: 1 flat, 3 bedrooms;
  • 4-bedroom flats: 6 flats, 24 bedrooms;
  • Total new: 7 flats, 27 bedrooms; therefore

Existing + new = 127 flats, 227 bedrooms.
—James Haigh (talk) 2017-06-20T03:17:24Z

Hat tags- why- should we remove them[edit]

This article has these hat tags: {{multiple| {{primary sources|date=June 2017}} {{unreliable sources|date=June 2017}} }} Does anyone know why? I propose they go- that the article has developed since they were cast- does anyone wish to defend them? --ClemRutter (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fully sourced so fine with me for the tags to go. Dormskirk (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use[edit]

There are many cross sections available that would enhance this article for instance From skyscraper city- all will be under one or more copyrights. So three questions

  • Is our case strong enough for fair use?
  • Has anyone enough experience to do the upload -and the time?
  • Is it worth doing?

There are other cross-sections of the tower- on construction- post 1992 and in preparation for 2015 --ClemRutter (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More tags[edit]

  • #Architect: Written in a professional blog by the Artist in Residence at the site and the result of an interview with the man himself. Incorrectly placed tag. I propose removal.--ClemRutter (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • #Grenfell Action Group: Primary tag. We have had wall to wall media coverage of all these issues- three items are self tagged- anyone like to change the references please. --ClemRutter (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:ClemRutter We base all articles on WP:SECONDARY sources. That section is covered by WP:BLP, so an interview on a blog is non-independent, plus WP:BLOGS, WP:PRIMARY, so no, the sourcing is too weak.
    • GAG (primary), Mirror (tabloid), firechoices.blogspot.co.uk (blog, unknown attribution) - again, it's weak.
    • So no, the tags should stay until these issues are fixed. The BLP section at least could be deleted at any time if there's no better source per BLOGS Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. . Widefox; talk 00:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, this article has a history of being click-bait, for wiki-gnomes who fail to ever read the sources they are criticising- but at least you have done the extra mile. So lets look in detail WP:BLPSPS- has an exception for professional blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. I admit we are pushing the limits here, but we have an employee of RBKC- reporting back on his work, on a his professional site- in which he reports an interview. I judge that to be adequate.
I agree that GAG sites are primary- this has all been widely reported and it could be easily re-referenced- it just takes time, and I and other editors are occupied with breaking news on Grenfell Tower fire. The Mirror is problematical- while tabloid in format its news and sports reports are reliable (using our standards)- the rest of it is 'tabloid'. Excluding it does exhibit a political POV. But that is a long debate and we have a encyclopedia to write.ClemRutter (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Never (original emphasis) is clear. WP:BLPSPS exception is "Some news organizations...blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" so no, and no, the exception clearly doesn't apply. I repeat, we shouldn't have a BLP like that, and anyone is free to remove it at any time (seemingly a low-profile individual).
This was quoted in Guardian cif Holly Watt Does that help to establish Constantine Gras's reliability --ClemRutter (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the rush? WP:NOTNEWS. This is a criminal case man (mass deaths), why on earth should we be hosting sub-policy BLPs, sections dominated by primaries, blogs, tabloids. I don't know which gnomes you're referring to, but the crux of it is there's a mass feeling to hold people responsible, but we need to keep our heads - there's standards to maintain WP:NPOV / WP:WEIGHT, and resist WP:RECENTISM per policy, plus sub judice. WP is not gonna catch the guy wat done it, WP:RIGHT WRONGS. Widefox; talk 10:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. The article is about a notable building in West London- in its history it had a fire. The criminal case (my POV too but not a referenced fact) has become the subject of a article, Grenfell Tower fire that many editors are patrolling. This article must limit itself to the building, its architecture and position in the social context of North Kensington where WP has poor coverage.
In its life history, an article goes through many phases. This is a young C, at its fact gathering and expansion stage, not a FAC. The paragraph about the GAG (fine for a stub) was there when I arrived at the article- and then over prominent- I thought about commenting it out but left it. Over time it has become strangely more relevant- to the building, and to the refurbishment and to the fire. Care must be taken, that searching for better references, more is not added here so it again becomes over prominent. If you could help by doing a little googling it would be appreciated. If you have the skills to to contact people to release some of their images to CC-BA-SA 4.0, or if you are in West London, taking images of the clear up would also be useful. --ClemRutter (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was a full range of opinions on notability at the AfD, some arguing keep as a SPINOUT (which is certainly my opinion, as there's hundreds/thousands of tower blocks of similar stature), and as I said at the AfD, a SPINOUT doesn't help the main article too much as the building is central, so only hinders the main article. But we still need to keep to policy. It is a criminal case. [1] Widefox; talk 09:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved by a rewrite, so the Watts piece in the Guardian becomes the principal secondary source- and the Whitebread early history is in quotes. ClemRutter (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1992 renovation[edit]

Claims of a 1992 renovation have been added several times, but I have seen no source confirming this. Please provide a clear source before restoring the information. Speed74 (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from the given reference page 5 is:
In the early 1990’s various improvements and changes were made across the estate, the most significant being access control. New glazed screens and doors with key-fob access now secure the blocks individually, restricting the use of the streets as thoroughfares. Whereas Grenfell Tower once had more than one point of access, including at Walkway level, it is now only accessible via a small reception at ground level on the south side of the tower. One of the changes made at the time was the closing off of the single public lift to Grenfell tower which serves Ground, Walkway and Walkway +1 levels. The latter originally served as a Doctor’s Surgery and most recently it was occupied by RBKC Social Services. There is now no lift access between the ground floor parking level and the Walkway anywhere across the estate.
The only thing that this doesn't pin down is 1992 (early 1990s) and I think that came from "Vague". I checked tonight and the link was broken- which happens a lot in RBKC at the moment so we do need to re-reference but I had saved the pdf locally.
I have found a new url I try that later.
To me it was a reconfiguration rather than a renovation, so the heading titles could do with a tweak. Its obvious that it has confused our ip-editor so will confuse other readers. Have you any ideas? ClemRutter (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new link. I have added a mention of the basic changes that were made to Grenfell Tower in the "construction" section. Perhaps the section heading could be changed to "history". Speed74 (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be accused of WP:OWN, so if you would like to commit a change it would be helpful.ClemRutter (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Future event- possibly[edit]

This wonderfully written paragraph should be in the Grenfell Tower fire not here. == Deconstruction == Grenfell Tower site manager Michael Lockwood told a public meeting on 26 July 2017 that the building is to be covered in a protective wrap supported by scaffolding during August. This is initially to protect forensic evidence but would later allow the building to be taken down towards the end of 2018. The community will be consulted on how the space should be used after deconstruction.<ref name=BBCCover/> Discuss? ClemRutter (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair comment. Another editor has migrated the reference to the top with one line summarising. I agree we need something more um... concrete to base this on. I originally wrote this for Grenfell Tower Fire [where it remains]. One point I find is how many pages all relate to similar subjects creating duplication. Anyway, my bet is this will almost certainly happen so its just a matter of time before this goes back in. This is not the first time I have been "too early!" :) David Crayford (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article will never be stable! It is very painful to write, and I am sure that when/if deconstruction is confirmed something similar will return, but at the moment, doubt anything that anyone is saying, as there are just too many agendas. Before council officer, or elected member is allowed to speak they go on Media training course- which can be summed up as "Wear a nice suit, look straight at the camera, ooze sincerity and don't give them any attributable facts- particularly names, dates, prices, locations or times".ClemRutter (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photos from May 2018[edit]

I am leaving a note here for the editors of this article to say that I have recently uploaded a set of photos of Grenfell Tower and the surrounds in May 2018. See commons:Category:Grenfell Tower - after fire and commons:Category:Grenfell Tower - memorials and appeals on site and look for files with 'May 2018' in the filename (I will add a photo or two to the articles, but please add or remove photos as needed). The scaffolding has been gradually inching up the tower over the past year, along with the white sheeting, and I thought it would be good to have photos of the tower as it now looks. I will try and get more photos if and when the scaffolding and sheeting is extended to the whole tower. Presumably at some point the planned deconstruction/demolition/taking down of the tower will happen, and hopefully someone can document that with photos for use on Wikipedia as well. What will happen after that, I am not sure, though there may be some information in recent official reports and news reports. Carcharoth (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grenfell Tower insulation 'never passed safety tests and should not have been used', investigation finds[edit]

John Cummings (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyed?[edit]

Hi, the building is listed on the article page as destroyed however it is still structurally sound and could be refitted. This will not happen of course as the British Government have taken responsibility for the site and have stated that in the public interest the building will be demolished.

In that case should the status of the building by "Awaiting demolition"?

Additionally should the red highlighted word "Destroyed" be removed from the info box as it is non neutral and possibly incorrect?

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


This seems contradictory...am I missing something?[edit]

"A fire broke out on 14 June 2017 which burned for three days and killed 72 of Grenfell's residents.[18] Emergency services received the first report of the fire at 00:54 local time and it burned for around 24 hours.[19]"

So did it burn for three days, or for 24 hours? Ormewood (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did a close reading of the source cited in the sentence claiming that the fire burned for three days, but couldn't find any mention at all of how long the fire burned, so I removed the claim that it had burned for three days. The source for the 24-hour claim did state that the fire burned for 24 hours. I suspect the truth is that the fire was out within 24 hours, and that the three-day claim was from hot spots reigniting small fires for the next few days, but there's no source material here to support that; if you revert my edit, please remember to cite references to back it up. Ormewood (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article Grenfell Tower fire says it burned for 60 hours. Maybe pull sources from there. I also moved this section to the bottom of the talk page for chronological order. MartinezMD (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents?[edit]

I was reading the liner notes to the Red Box album The Circle & the Square in which Simon Toulson-Clarke describes the duo living in "a tower block...in Latimer Road" for the seven years prior to their success in 1985. Are we aware of any notable residents (Google searches have not been helpful) - or perhaps have more detail about the role this large tower block played in the local community before the fire? -ProhibitOnions (T) 10:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grenfell_Tower&oldid=1207445034"