Report comment

I live opposite this estate and though a fan of much modern architecture cannot see a reason to preserve this. It is exceptionally ugly and ill fitting with its canal side location. There is no sense at all that it is part of the setting of Trellick Tower - if anything Trellick would be enhanced with its removal. The idea that is worth preserving merely because it is Goldfinger and ‘historical’ seems absurd. Why? Because it is good example of misguided modernist thinking on social housing? Historical? It dates back to the 1960's. In the end it is just a building and rather poor one at that I can think of many locals who not only would want to see this gone but Trellick Tower as well – it quite ridiculous as above to describe it as "one of the great pieces of architecture of the 20th Century". Perhaps the time has come to step back and revaluate its importance - there seems an absurd reverance attached to it and Goldfinger. The truth might be that this outcome was perhaps fuelled by a cynical campaign by local councillors who have previously demonstrated a desire to block any change in the Golbourne Ward. Cynical in that they resist anything that will change local socio demographics, even if it might be good for the area and its population as a whole. Perhaps little to do with architecture and more with electoral majorities.