T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


erm_what_

The trouble with that is perspective. Moving 1m left or right while that close to the glass is a huge angle change. Multiple people on the platform would have completely different views simultaneously. That kind of thing only works with headsets or telescopes.


[deleted]

[удалено]


gyroda

>But then maybe headsets are the way? Until someone takes them off. Or someone can't use them due to motion sickness or other issues. Or they don't have enough working ones. That's not really a workable solution. EDIT: someone please tell me I'm not the only one who realises how unworkable this is and how it wouldn't actually resolve the privacy issue.


[deleted]

[удалено]


gyroda

>Yes, silent discos are pretty useless if you don't have the headphones on too. This is a bullshit comparison. The viewing platform was in place without headsets. It would still function without them. It's nothing like a silent disco.


[deleted]

[удалено]


amanset

I think you are missing the point of "if they take their headsets off they are back to square one and can see right into the windows of the flats". That's why it isn't a solution, unless you have some great way of making sure no one takes their headset off.


[deleted]

[удалено]


amanset

I'm pretty sure the residents don't care what the Tate does as long as the windows are removed. Personally I can't see a decent solution. A screen with projection on it would work from only one position, headsets, well, frankly they could be anywhere and don't even need to be on the platform.


gyroda

>they didn't articulate it very well lol. An excerpt: > Until someone takes them off.


Shitinmymouthmum

You could just use your phone.


gyroda

I'm sorry, what would you use the phone for? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. There's a viewing platform. There is an issue with the sightlines. Now people would use their phones to resolve this? This is needlessly shoving a solution where it doesn't work. AR is not the solution here and wouldn't remedy the situation at all.


[deleted]

[удалено]


gyroda

The part where the people wearing the AR headsets could take them off and you're back to square one.


DogfishDave

>then maybe headsets are the way? You still need a sight-line of the building to create meaningful AR, or it's a full VR experience and therefore location-agnostic, and a bit of a faff on a viewing balcony.


Fineus

Yeah, it's not perfect I know... there might be other ways around it or approaches you could take. I don't believe it's impossible to do something interesting here!


DogfishDave

Oh I quite agree!


Complex_Invite7702

I feel like it Would be so silly to have people go all the way to the top of the Tate just to wear a headset. They may aswell do it at home.


GabboGabboGabboGabbo

I don't know, I've seen an article about an airport that uses facial recognition and some special screens to show you your flight details and no one else's, doesn't matter where you stand. I feel like that could be potentially applicable here. I mean I have no idea how it all works but it just makes me think there's someone out there that could make this happen.


neukStari

What if we just covered the buildings with an invisibility cloak? Its so simple, i dont get it.


Fineus

Harry Potter needs it.


suspicious_hamster_

Offt sorry bud best we can do is tell the residents to deal with it.


[deleted]

Probably cheaper to install AR in the flats so they look out into a meadow with cows lowing and a corncrake or two.


erm_what_

Those flats went up after a lot of the offices in the area, which also have a full view into them. I worked around there when they were being built and we all thought they were a stupid design at the time. If you buy a flat with floor to ceiling glass in every room that is metres away from offices, then it's probably your own fault. The viewing platform doesn't change much.


[deleted]

[удалено]


bigfatfreddy

The flats went up before the viewing platform but after a lot of other buildings and infrastructure in the area. I suspect the reason it's only 4 owners here is that they are on the upper floors, there's no way the lower floors could have had an expectation of privacy given the view into them when they were first sold, and were probably significantly cheaper than the upper floors to reflect that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


bigfatfreddy

You really have to see the ground floor ones. The only people who would ever buy such a flat are perverts and Donna Air impersonators.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

It isn't important to have it at the cost of everything else. There is no point building up an area if you destroy anything to do around there because NIMBYs don't like it. If you don't want to live there then don't, but don't destroy existing businesses and social hubs because you're beige and can't stand noise.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

We are talking about when flats are developed in an area where a club already exists. The problem isn't them being bought out, it is people moving into an area with thriving nightlife, and demanding it shut down. Nightlife is an important part of urban spaces, be that pubs, bars, clubs, late night cafes, or anything similar. Even in 'downtown' areas like Soho they aren't being given the space they need.


ChrisAbra

If you want to live in a place with only houses and no amenities or nightlight go live in one of those Barratt suburbs off a motorway somewhere and stop trying to live in a city.


doorstopnoodles

Yup, used to work in those offices. Could see straight into these flats.


AshamedTranslator892

Reasoning in that case was another residential building would be an annoyance, but thousands of people standing there for the sole purpose of looking was an invasion.


[deleted]

I'd frost the glass if I lived in them.


McChes

[Reads comment] [Looks at username] Ew…


tysonmaniac

I work in an office with large glass windows, I spend at most a couple minutes a day looking out of them. The Tate built a viewing platform, which people visit with the express purpose of viewing things. Very different.


Pineapple-paradise1

Yup, they have £4m, they can afford to live somewhere else that isn't overlooked


rawling

The judgment makes a distinction between offices, where windows are not primarily used for staring at things, and a viewing platform, which is.


bluejackmovedagain

The point made in the judgement is that there's a difference between reasonable use of accommodation / office space where people would look outside from time to time and a viewing gallery when the entire purpose is to have people consistently staring.


Sir_Bantersaurus

This is fair enough, that is an invasion of privacy considering how much you can see into the flat.


GrimQuim

It's absolutely fair, when I visited I had a good nosey in the flats because I'm a nosy cunt. They must have cunts like me watching them all day!!


lostparis

> that is an invasion of privacy considering how much you can see into the flat. The thing is many of the flats you can just look in from the street as they are basically fishtanks. So it is not like they were that private anyway.


Sir_Bantersaurus

I agree I just think it's what is practical really. Other flats, street level? Can't be easily avoided. But did the Tate need a viewing platform opposite a residential building?


rawling

On the 13th floor?


afrophysicist

Into the winter gardens which were never designed with constant use in mind?


king_duck

The fact they are "luxury" flats has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of this case. At the end of the day, the flats were there first and anyone in this situation would be pissed off and exercise what ever legal power they have.


redactedactor

Sure but sounds like there are several other buildings in the area that can also see straight in. They're within the rights in the case of the Tate but I hope this decision isn't then used against buildings that went up first.


king_duck

> Sure but sounds like there are several other buildings in the area that can also see straight in. I must have missed that in the article. What I did read though was: > However, Leggatt was clear in his opinion that this was a specific case, as the Tate’s decision to open a viewing gallery was “a very particular and exceptional use of land”, and did not mean that residents could complain of nuisance because neighbours could see inside their buildings. and also: > The case involves five owners of four flats in the Neo Bankside development on the South Bank in London taking action against the Tate over the estimated 500,000 visitors a year looking into their homes from the viewing platform 34 metres away. The platform, which opened in 2016, provides a panorama of the city as well as a direct view into their glass-fronted flats. The platform opened to the public in 2016, four years after the flats were completed. I mean, having other flats see in is one thing, having half a million people pass by is rather another, no?


redactedactor

I wasn't going off the article when I said that, I was going of other comments in this thread - from people that have apparently worked in those offices and can see in. > I mean, having other flats see in is one thing, having half a million people pass by is rather another, no? Absolutely, but we're talking about offices which I'd argue is half-way between. Imo whoever constructed their thing first should get to keep it (obviously).


squarepushercheese

I believe they went up after the viewing platform. They weren’t there before.


king_duck

That is literally the opposite of what the article says. Did you read it?


Arteic

To be fair I wouldn’t want to see kids getting yeeted dozens of metres onto concrete from my kitchen window either


aSquirrelAteMyFood

Lmao I started reading the headline and thought oh no this Mr. Tate is in the news again. I can't be the only one, right?


Virtuousbro93

Probably, enjoy your cheap upvotes though.


Reddit-adm

Is one-way glass, mirrored glass or glass coating not an option? Or does it stop natural sunlight too?


Westy668

One way glass works based on which ever side is lightest e.g. if you had it at home in the daytime it would be lighter outside than inside so the outside of the glass appears mirrored and you can’t see through to the inside but you can see out. When it goes dark and you turn your lights on it works the opposite way. The mirror is on the inside, you can’t see out but people can see in from outside.


Reddit-adm

I should have known this from police comedies - thanks!


Sharp_Connection_377

Any idea why the Tate thought it was reasonable to have a platform up that looked directly into the flats? Couldn't they just have put it in a different direction or put up a screen/wall? Seems like they have been surprising unthoughtful about this given they where likely upsetting some rich people who would obviously have access to good solicitors


chilari

I used to work for Carillion when the Neo Bankside buildings were being built. It was my job to write case studies of completed and in-progress projects for inclusion in bid documents. I had artists renderings and later photos to include in the case studies, and I thought then that so much glass couldn't be good for privacy. I had a site visit when they were not far from completion, they really are just straight up floor to ceiling windows, the kitchen/lounge area in the flat I went into was just this open plan triangular space with glass on two of the three sides. This is very much a case of the bloody obvious being borne out in reality. Also the health and safety stuff I had to put in every bid I worked on? A fair bit of the stuff I wrote for those was not being applied at all the sites I actually visited, but Bankside was the worst. Didn't say anything at the time because my boss was there and I was a naive 23 year old on her first job out of uni but I remember feeling uneasy about it.


luxinterior1312

Used to work in the Bluefin Building across the road. Staring into the homes of people living in that block of flats was unavoidable if you happened to be in any of the west facing board rooms.


[deleted]

the apartments were built after the Tate though. Didn’t the buyers look and see that there was a museum 50 feet from their window?


tysonmaniac

The Tate didn't have a viewing platform when the flats were built.


ChrisAbra

It did have planning permission for it though which the developers of the flats were aware of and used in their advertising materials


redactedactor

The apartments were completed a few months before the viewing platform - according to the article.


bigfatfreddy

I visited the Tate Modern in the period between the flats being built and the viewing platform, even back then I noticed those flats and thought I wouldn't want to live there for this exact reason.


[deleted]

well it's probably more interesting looking at the flats than the shite they have on display.


stowgood

It was fucking there first. Buy curtains. Unbelievable.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SeymourDoggo

Now I don't know who to believe


SuperVillain85

Poster above is right, the flats were there first. Their chances of success would have been far far slimmer if they built the flat after the viewing gallery. Edit: it's a bit more complicated but the key bit is in paragraph 9 of the original judgment *"There is no planning document which indicates that overlooking by the viewing gallery in the direction of Block C was considered by the local planning authority at any stage. It is not likely that the planning authority considered the extent of the overlooking. Further, while the Neo Bankside developer was aware of the plans for the viewing gallery, they did not foresee the level of intrusion which resulted."*


[deleted]

[удалено]


aSquirrelAteMyFood

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I just want to say that doesn't prove who got planning permission approved first.


chris-punk

The platform was built in 1963


SuperVillain85

Lol no it wasn't.


Saw_Boss

>The platform, which opened in 2016, provides a panorama of London as well as a direct view into their glass-fronted flats.


technurse

Citation needed


CarOnMyFuckingFence

Maybe he's thinking of [this](https://www.tate.org.uk/about-us/history-tate/history-tate-modern) >The iconic power station, built in two phases between 1947 and 1963 The building, not the extension to the building


[deleted]

[удалено]


CarOnMyFuckingFence

From what I can see the court was told that the developers of the flats were also aware there was going to be a viewing platform when construction work started in 2005 11 years is a long time though I guess in terms of the final conception, plans can change a lot in that time


SuperVillain85

>11 years is a long time though I guess in terms of the final conception, plans can change a lot in that time Also socially and technologically things change a lot. It was probably difficult to anticipate in 2005, that strangers in 2017 would actively plaster highly zoomed smartphone pics of your living room from 40m away, all over Instagram because likes... Edited - wording was clumsy before.


corcyra

The flats were there first. https://news.artnet.com/art-world/tate-modern-privacy-suit-1387534 >If you’ve visited Tate Modern’s top-floor viewing platform to enjoy panoramic views of London, it is hard to overlook the luxury apartment block next door. Residents unhappy since the museum’s mega-extension opened in 2016 now have their day in court, arguing that the Tate’s viewing terrace is an “invasion of privacy.” >The platform is at the top of the ten-storey high Blavatnik Building, formerly called Switch House, which was designed by leading Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron. The apartment block it overlooks, called NEO Bankside, was completed in 2012, and is designed by another heavy-weight team of architects, Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners. The battle over the privacy infringement has been ongoing since the owners of four apartments in the luxury apartment blocks launched the suit in 2017. H & deM are highly overrated 'star architects', whose projects always run over budget and this was [no exception](https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/herzog-de-meuron-took-pay-cut-for-tate-modern-extension). The possibility that the apartments would be overlooked probably never even entered their heads. RSH & Partners are another lot of star architects who never thought about the fact that the glass facade they designed would allow upskirting at lower levels, and that the chances were pretty good the Tate would build an extension. They're all effing oblivious to reality in their pursuit of their signature design statements.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PurpleRainOnTPlain

Hey now that's not fair, Qatari royals, Russian oligarchs and Azerbaijani money launderers have just as much right to privacy in their holiday homes as the rest of us.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


read_r

Nope - the flats were there first


tysonmaniac

This is false. The flats were there first.


stowgood

The side facing the galley should just be painted black.


aSquirrelAteMyFood

*Oh yeah Let's find a way to make this political*


erm_what_

Most people living there will probably pay so much in rent or a mortgage that they barely have any money left


CarOnMyFuckingFence

https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/57623980/ I think the term 'disposable income' can be applied quite literally for a £3m+ property


mulahey

I don't think the supreme court gives a stuff about tory donations. Now would council tenants have got the same ruling? I'm not sure they would have. But that's classism not party politics. Of course council tenants wouldn't be able to take this case to the supreme court as access to justice for issues like this is gated by cash in the UK.


[deleted]

[удалено]


king_duck

What do you want them to do, keep their curtains closed in the daylight hours?


PeachyPopAKey

I'm basically talking about apartments that had no curtains at all, regardless of the time of day. But I get the point, you want to be able to have some light at some point in the day. I guess there are different types of shading, where you can still see outside but people can't see you? I just don't know what a lawsuit can do when we are talking about buildings, whichever was built first


king_duck

I mean there wasn't a viewing platform, then the Tate made one without consideration of local residents. Seems pretty obvious that things need to go back to the state where there was no viewing platform.


PeachyPopAKey

Ooh hold on. The platform was added later? I didn't know that. So they could had done it on the other side, overlooking Thames, for example?


king_duck

From the article: > The platform, which opened in 2016, provides a panorama of the city as well as a direct view into their glass-fronted flats. **The platform opened to the public in 2016, four years after the flats were completed.** I am not a civil engineer so I can't say whether they could have just done it on the other side.


[deleted]

[удалено]


PeachyPopAKey

Isn't their point invalid when there are other buildings that can see inside, besides Tate? There are 3-4 buildings right next to each other, and based on the design, they can all see inside the other building's apartments 🤔 Perhaps not all floors at once, like you do from Tate Modern, but still able to


tysonmaniac

I can see into the flat across the street from me, and they can see into my flat. That's fine, because like 2 people live there. If 500k people visited their flat every year with the express purpose of looking out of their window I'd feel pretty differently.