Kendall Square, Cambridge, USA (MIT neighborhood) has something like this, but it's not good.
The space was originally a beloved "public roof garden" which I believe was done as a real estate developer concession to the city. The landscaping itself was whatever, but it was a nice escape from the industrial university campus neighborhood. Get away from your university or industry lab, at any time of day or night, and go up above the commotion, to more sunlight or a view of the stars, with a friend.
Then Google wanted to expand their office space. IIUC, there was a very strange city committee approval, without a quorum, by a single person, who stepped down afterwards.
Much of the public roof garden space was taken. And what remains was remodeled into a nano-Googleplex style grounds party deck, outside their windows. And surveillance cameras, and security guards who often make their presence known.
But it's still technically open to the public. (Challenge: From Broadway, try to spot the signage for it, in a great moment of visual design low-contrast white-on-light-pink signage, amidst larger bold high-contrast color decorations. Even if I tell you it's in a recessed corner beside a parking garage, and you have the benefit of StreetView rather than walking along the sidewalk, and I even tell you what color to look for, you'll have trouble. Under normal conditions, you'd have no idea the public access concession was even there, which presumably was the task given to the designer who must hate that this is what their career has come to.)
And when it's not locked, you can go up there, and get a lookout view of some of the city, while being under the evil eye yourself, and constantly feel like you should leave, which you soon do.
> more likely to get planning permission if their new skyscraper included a free public roof terrace
If that's the deal, it's crazy that some of those places are getting away with then discouraging the public from actually going there. Book your visit in advance! Present ID! Photography forbidden! This grumpy security guard will be hovering nearby <3
It's like Nathan For You S03E01 where a store advertises a $1 TV, then tells the drawn in would-be customers to please respect the black tie dress code, crawl through a tiny door, and squeeze past the alligator.
The problem is worse outside London, hotels in conservation areas that get planning for health clubs on the basis that locals can buy memberships too, then quietly withdrawn. A car park that should be open for public paid parking becomes private.
It's a fantastic idea, but enforcement sucks on intangible things like this. In a few years time I'm sure it will be 'closed for maintenance' then never reopen to the public or a nice restaurant will go up there and suddenly you'll need a restaurant booking to use the lift.
You must book in advance because they’re incredibly popular, huge queues, long waits, and capacity limits. The Sky Garden (Fenchurch Building) is huge, beautiful and absolutely packed with people. Many people consider it a London must visit.
Capacity may indeed be a reason for requiring advance bookings.
But it doesn't explain the ridiculous security (scanning gates, had to take off my hat and belt, insulin pump was inspected), the prohibition of "professional" photography equipment, prohibition of own food and drinks (again, diabetes, I want to carry some lemonade and a bar for emergency), etc etc.
Is it to counter terrorism? To boost consuming at the establishments? Or is it a lame excuse thats in reality just a higher bar to entry?
They’re worried that if there was an incident they might get sued for having inadequate security.
I’ve spent a lot of time going to places with security like this (airports, museums etc) and getting a belt with plastic buckles (you can get them at outdoor clothing stores) saves a lot of hassle.
Have you visited The View from The Shard? A very expensive visit, with exactly the same security checks as Sky Garden. Security in tall buildings is high (even if that security is mostly theatre).
"Certain items cannot be brought into The View from The Shard including large bags and backpacks, over the size of 22 x 15 x 8 inches (55 x 38 x 20 cm) or other large equipment."
"We ask guests to walk through metal detectors, which use a low-frequency electromagnetic field to look for metal items."
The Shard has a hotel (Shangri La) with a separate entrance, and no security to get up to the 52nd floor Gong bar (as well as several other restaurants and bar from 30th floor and up)
Next door you need to go through a scanner to get up to the restaurants on the 31st and 32nd floor of the Shard.
Security in these buildings is very arbitrary. I can get that some of the more high profile places feel more of a need for security, and assume that anyone up to no good will perhaps not be the brightest of the bunch and/or will go for more symbolic targets, but still.
Right, the security is all theatre. My comparison is specifically to show that the security at Sky Garden (free) is not implemented to discourage free visitors when The View from The Shard charges lots of money and wants as many visitors as possible and has the same security.
This is also true for visitors to the offices located in the shard, it's very annoying to unload a overnight bag when trying to visit an office. I always wondered what the purpose was as regular employees skip the security queue
I was thinking more about his experience with e.g. the last one on the page, Roof Garden at The Post Building:
> I still don't understand why it's here nor why it's open daily, nor why they insist on Photo ID "and a full written name" before they'll let you up. However I didn't get the chance to test this out yesterday because when I arrived the roof terrace was "closed due to essential maintenance work", inconveniencing probably nobody but myself.
Sky Garden is really the only one that does not make it hard. No need to book - just pop up there for with your sandwiches for lunch, and I think it's the best roof garden in city.
You might need to queue for a little while on a weekend or at prime lunchtime.
The others you need to book weeks ahead, so agree with the previous post that they do make it hard. Sky Garden is not one of them.
I'm not a proper Londoner but I am English, I stand by my comment though - people who actually grew up in London would be even less likely to be found in central London on a Saturday
I was born in the city I live in and so were my kids. They’ve never visited the #1 tourist attraction, and I only did when I was a kid.
My experience living in the UK was that we’d go off as a family to visit Arundel Castle or one of the hundred other amazing things nearby, and the Brits I worked with would say “oh yeah, I went there on a school trip…” or “oh I’ve heard it’s nice.”
Denizens of a place don’t always appreciate what their location offers. That doesn’t make them cool or better than tourists.
That said, I agree that central London is not somewhere I desperately want to go every day. But there’s a lot of great stuff there.
Yeah true, that's fair enough. And you're right there is good stuff in central especially if you're into cultural stuff (theatre, art galleries etc.) - that stuff is all in central and I absolutely take it for granted, there's only a few cities that can match London for that.
I think I'm just jaded from trying to wade through waddling masses of tourists whenever I make the mistake of going anywhere remotely central on a Saturday or Sunday, but I get why if you're a tourist that stuff probably seems cool
This is the country where organised marches must have police approval and follow an approved route (and most acute in London). Hardly a surprise!
London's vibe is: 'privately owned, and you're lucky to be here'
Edit: I'm British btw (and currently sat in a pub in London) in case people downvote me thinking I'm a yank lol. There are many people who dislike London and the UK who aren't yanks
In most countries in Europe organized marches and protests must be run by authorities. It's pretty normal here.
Protesting is a legal right but the authorities do have the right to restrict it for public order reasons. For example they often will insist on separate routes to keep conflicting groups apart. It makes sense too.
> This is the country where organised marches must have police approval and follow an approved route
You have to notify the police not get approval. They can "impose conditions and restrictions" for safety or to limit the rights of others to travel freely, after which they'll also be somewhat liable to protect you from counter-protesters, or lunatics trying to drive their car at you.
Just about every country requires some kind of advance notice if its not just a few people walking along the pavement/sidewalk and your going to obstruct traffic or block others movement
NB. It's article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights[1] which gives us "the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."
Reform's manifesto includes[2]: "Stop the Boats with our 4 Point Plan. Leave the European Convention on Human Rights."
Its not as if things are any better in the country that boasts the most about its freedoms regarding access to supposedly public spaces: https://www.instagram.com/780_lord_of_bench
There are thousands of protests per year in central London. The larger ones (tens of thousands of people) are going to be disrupting public transport routes than people rely on. There's an approved route so that disruption can be managed. Nothing to do with being 'privately owned'. It also doesn't help that for a large number of people 'protesting' means travelling into London, getting drunk, and fighting.
How many protestors did the U.K. police kill in the last few years, compared to, say, a very free country… like the U.S?
edit: responding to your edit, of course many British people hate London and for many valid reasons, but your reasoning is very American. Very few British people share that American view of freedom and would describe London as “privately owned”.
No, it isn't. It is called 'City of London Corporation' in the sense of being a municipal corporation, but effectively it's just a local authority... except that businesses still get a vote along with citizens.
The City of London is a novel anachronism making up a square mile that nobody British would ever refer to as “London” nor do they complain about it being “private”.
What's your basis for commenting on us Brits? You can't even spell UK correctly (we don't use full stops. That's an Americanism / hypercorrection). You spell with a z, so not a Brit
I am no less British than you. I was born in England, raised in England, educated in England, voted in England, my parents were born in England, my grandparents were born in England, my great grandparents were born in England… so on and so forth. I am very sorry that my choice to use American spelling on an American website offends you.
The irony is that the beliefs you’re espousing are an infection caused by U.S. cultural dominance of politics on the Internet. Anti-woke right wing people are heavily influenced by American political attitudes. Do you also believe in Birmingham’s no-go zones?
British people are miserable and cynical and hate everything about our godforsaken country but London being “privately owned” is not one of those things. Civilized protest is not one of those things.
Taking a chainsaw to said fence on the request of a non-emergency request line would be perfectly legal. They are obstructing public space, no different from a pothole or an abandoned vehicle.
I had a similar experience recently on the other side of the river, though less extreme I think. Between London Bridge and Greenwich there are a few stretches that are ostensibly "public" but not that easy to access. Some are behind gates that are in fact unlocked, so you can just walk through, if you try, but they don't look very welcoming or accessible so I think a lot of people probably don't even bother. Other times the gates are in fact locked for non-residents and you can access the river by some other more roundabout way.
Bit of an aside, but although the area around Greenwich is lovely, I've always preferred walking the Thames Path out west, eg Putney to Richmond. Very peaceful and green, and IIRC all pretty accessible (apart from a stretch of the path near Barnes that is completely underwater when the tide is high).
Doesn't the UK (or at least England) also have some kind of network of public pathways, many of which are on private property? Are there similar conflicts in that system, or does it work differently somehow?
Yes. It's a little different between England & Wales, Scotland, and NI, but public rights of way (footpaths and bridleways) are very much a thing.
My experience is that it works well in general, but some landowners are better than others, and some highway authorities (which enforce the laws) are more zealous than others. Most of the issues I see around me is farmers allowing crops to grow through low use footpaths such that they become impassable.
The other tricky bit of PRoWs is that any path used by the public for 20 years continuously, without force, secrecy, or the landowner's permission, is legally presumed to be a public right of way, even if it isn't shown on the definitive map kept by the local authority. That can lead to legal fights e.g. [1] and [2]. There are also 'permissive footpaths' where landowners have agreed to allow the public to pass, but not become a PRoW. There are also s106 agreements (planning obligations) where developers must allow the public to use land as a footpath. The Thames Path has a mix of these.
In Scotland, there is a more general 'right to roam' which allows anybody to access most land (excepting buildings and their curtilages, military sites, and other obvious exceptions), but there are affirmative duties to maintain PRoWs that don't apply to open access land making them still relevant. England and Wales have some limited open access land as well, but much much less of it. NI has no open access land and (subjectively) fewer public footpaths.
They apparently moved the location, but protesting at the new location is still heavily restricted [0] with a dystopian narrative.
> In order to achieve the balance between the rights of those holding a rally and the rights and freedoms of others to go about their business we have put together this guidance and simple application process.
Every single thing in the text you (inaccurately) quoted.
City Hall is no longer on a private estate, no Kuwaiti investment company is involved, and the application process involves no "corporate permission" - you submit a form to the city government, and it sounds like the point is to make sure each rally is allocated a separate area, and they don't deny permission outright.
> Every single thing in the text you (inaccurately) quoted.
Your first sentence makes no sense. It's quoted directly from the Guardian article, not from me.
> it sounds like the point is to make sure each rally is allocated a separate area, and they don't deny permission outright.
FWIW, look at the next article I linked. You're really understating the restrictions for a public, outdoor venue. This is on brand with restrictive public use.
- No noise directed outwards
- no noise after 6PM
- confined to two lawns (that can't fit more than 3k people)
- no sound speakers
- no overnight rallies even if quiet
- leave no trash
- no food for others
- you're strongly advised to fill out a notification form if your group is larger than a dozen people
> London’s seat of democratic governance now sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment outfit. John Biggs, the London Assembly member, tells me he has been prevented from doing television interviews outside the building by private security guards who insist he needs a special permit; protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission. “I think that as active citizens we’ve got a reasonable responsibility to test and push at these public/private borders,” he tells me. “It’s clear we’ve got the balance wrong at the moment.”
You “quoted”:
> City Hall sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment company. Protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission.
Reading these comments, "The Tragedy of the Commons" [https://pages.mtu.edu/~asmayer/rural_sustain/governance/Hard...] comes to mind: those who frequent London's many little known free roof terraces know that mentioning them here instantly blows their cover.
but yes there is very sparse information and instead of examples i get "NetworkError when attempting to fetch resource." and it says "free" here and there but free forever, free until?
Ah, sorry about the error! I guess it could use some optimisation. It will remain free for the users. I haven't thought about monetisation but for sure it won't be on the final user. Either ads or sponsored places by companies etc. Similar to TripAdvisor
This is so odd to learn about, thank you. I live in Washington State, USA, and almost all of our beaches are public access. We have a bunch of "public terraces" in Seattle and other cities. hopefully London can move beyond this idea of privatizing access to water features of viewing platforms.
What about Crossrail Place in Canary Wharf, doesn't count?
Otherwise there are plenty of other roof terraces which are bars/restaurants. Typically more enjoyable as you don't have to book tickets and you get to enjoy a drink.
When I was younger, I used to think the Shard was daylight robbery. But 16 quid for a signature cocktail and a view (or 12 for a spirit + mixer) is no longer outrageously expensive in London and you'd pay that to go up a skyscraper in many countries anyway. Both Rockefeller and the Empire State are $40+, though you can go outside. Even Aqua Shard, which is apparently in the Michelin guide, "only" charges about 20. Which is bordering on outrageous, but the view is great.
Though while the bar is reasonable, Aqua Shard is overpriced if you're going their to eat (the food is good, but you can get better food for the same/similar price elsewhere, including at Hutong, one floor up).
But if you're going to a bar in the Shard, Gong (52nd floor), Ting (35th) and Hutong (32nd) are all higher up. Gong and Ting also has the advantage that you don't have to pass through that ridiculous security scanner (entrance is via the Shangri La hotel)
I think some people might not count Canary Wharf's various gardens as examples of this because while Canary Wharf is a private estate that is open to the public, the parks and green spaces aren't a quiet strategy to get buildings approved, they're part of the estate's broad strategy to be green and welcoming. Canary Wharf actively encourages visitors to all of their green spaces.
> Alas it also had great views into the apartments at Neo Bankside whose residents ultimately sued and won, thus if you arrive by lift today you can only visit the cafe
> Tate Modern had high hopes for the 10th floor of the Blatnavik Building with its cafe and a four-sided observation terrace with excellent views of the Thames. Alas it also had great views into the apartments at Neo Bankside whose residents ultimately sued and won, thus if you arrive by lift today you can only visit the cafe.
I was curious about what type of arguments you could make to win a case like this.
"The Supreme Court commented that the degree of overlooking from visitors to the Tate gallery was so extreme it subjected the residents to being “much like being on display in a zoo” and held that there is no reason why constant visual intrusion cannot give rise to liability for nuisance."
Not really, it’s very common in the UK to not having curtains or closed curtains even if you live on the street level. You can walk in a town and literally watch TV through the windows.
In a tall apartment / skyscraper I bet not more than 10% ever have or close their curtain. Also they paid those prices to look at that view so they want to do that. (A flat there is £1-5M)
No need for that. It’s England, preferential treatment depends more on your social class than who you know, in such cases. Knowing powerful people definitely can help in some contexts, but the judiciary is well insulated in that respect.
This was a decision made by five supreme court justices in a 3/2 split, do you have any particular reason to believe there has been corruption involved in this UK litigation?
The case was a very big deal in London. The outcome was not one of bias, but complicated circumstance.
The apartment building was built years before the Tate Modern opened their viewing floor. After the Tate Modern viewing floor opened, visitors to the Tate Modern began photographing and videoing and watching people in the neighbouring apartment building.
The judge reasonably determined that there is some sacrifice of privacy made when choosing to live in a glass apartment building, but the Tate Modern's viewing floor's compromise of privacy was so egregious that it should not be allowed regardless of planning permission.
There are many buildings all over London that look over one another, many of those occupied by very very rich people, it was not corruption.
How can privacy be egregiously violated? Isn’t it just you have a window to look in or not? And every building has windows to look in if you choose to not draw the blinds?
If I secretly hide a camera in your bedroom, would the violation of privacy be made more egregious if I then went ahead and broadcast that footage on TV?
>Isn’t it just you have a window to look in or not? And every building has windows to look in if you choose to not draw the blinds?
For example, there would be a pretty big difference between my neighbour being able to see into my apartment and my neighbour organising tour groups to look into my apartment.
I don't mind my neighbour, it is reasonable to expect that my neighbours will be able to see into my apartment. I however could not reasonably expect that my neighbours would host some sort of organised viewing activity on a regular basis.
Isn't it on the individuals occupying the apartment to use curtains of some sort if they don't want to be seen? Unless I'm missing context the museum didn't organize tour groups to specially look into the apartments
> Isn't it on the individuals occupying the apartment to use curtains of some sort if they don't want to be seen?
Sure, but the problem here was explicitly not the individuals occupying the apartments being seen.
>Unless I'm missing context the museum didn't organize tour groups to specially look into the apartments
From the court ruling: "Visitors in the viewing gallery frequently look into the claimants' flats and take photographs, and less frequently view the claimants and their flats with binoculars."
"Photographs of the flats are posted on social media by visitors. On the platform Instagram there were 124 posts in the period between June 2016 and April 2018"
I do not think it's acceptable to subject anyone to this, be they rich or poor.
Actually, sounds like they had a much better solution than moving out of the city: they appealed to a judge, who agreed with them. Sounds like you’re the one out of step with reality here.
Come on, this was just gross by Tate and the supreme court was right to put a stop to it. I visited the extension before it opened, it was obvious this was going to be a problem.
A busy viewing terrace is not an ordinary use of space, building one looking right into private homes isn't cool regardless of how wealthy the residents of those homes are.
Every viewing terrace in cities I've been to have a view that lets you see in other people apartment. That's pretty much expected in cities, if you have large glass windows people can see you, and that's why curtains exist. I don't really see how the terrace is the issue here.
That's just a function of the lenses being used. The distance is 34 metres, you could see very well into the flats.
I've been on the viewing platform, you had a very good view into the rather nice looking flats. Most people who came on the platform spent a good chunk of time staring at those flats, because they happen to be one of the more interesting things to view from the platform.
You might be surprised to find out how few people on the very progressive r/london subreddit were upset by this supreme court decision, probably because they were actually familiar with the situation: https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/10qqey4/flat_owners...
I am looking at this building on the map and it is surrounded by water, hotels, and restaurants. That doesn’t seem like a pure residential area to me. If you don’t want public to see in your house don’t live next to a museum? This is rich people problems and that’s why it lost like 4 times before somehow winning the final. 100 rich people or 10k museum visitors. Hmmmm who should we prioritize.
Do you have 20+ people looking into your home all day long, taking photos and posting them on instagram?
Visitors in the viewing gallery frequently look into the claimants' flats and take
photographs, and less frequently view the claimants and their flats with binoculars.
Photographs of the flats are posted on social media by visitors. On the platform
Instagram there were 124 posts in the period between June 2016 and April 2018. It has
been estimated that those posts reached an audience of 38,600. Mann J found that
there was a significant number of people using the viewing gallery who demonstrated
a visual interest in the interiors of the flats, including by looking, peering in, taking
photographs and waving to the occupants. He accepted that their numbers and the
level of interest were such that a homeowner would reasonably regard this as intrusive
so far as the use of the south side of the viewing gallery was concerned (by contrast,
the western side of the viewing gallery is at an oblique angle to the flats, offering only
a limited view into them).
(This goes on and on, and at no point does it sound any better for Tate)
Supreme Court judges do not express "takes". They make legal judgements and express legal opinion based on years of experience and deep knowledge of the law. They deserve a bit more respect than a likening to some random Redditor having a "take"
You're describing what a take is... It's not a reddit term. A supreme court isn't a holy entity that requires special deference or language when talking about their activity. What a ridiculous reaction
Kendall Square, Cambridge, USA (MIT neighborhood) has something like this, but it's not good.
The space was originally a beloved "public roof garden" which I believe was done as a real estate developer concession to the city. The landscaping itself was whatever, but it was a nice escape from the industrial university campus neighborhood. Get away from your university or industry lab, at any time of day or night, and go up above the commotion, to more sunlight or a view of the stars, with a friend.
Then Google wanted to expand their office space. IIUC, there was a very strange city committee approval, without a quorum, by a single person, who stepped down afterwards.
Much of the public roof garden space was taken. And what remains was remodeled into a nano-Googleplex style grounds party deck, outside their windows. And surveillance cameras, and security guards who often make their presence known.
But it's still technically open to the public. (Challenge: From Broadway, try to spot the signage for it, in a great moment of visual design low-contrast white-on-light-pink signage, amidst larger bold high-contrast color decorations. Even if I tell you it's in a recessed corner beside a parking garage, and you have the benefit of StreetView rather than walking along the sidewalk, and I even tell you what color to look for, you'll have trouble. Under normal conditions, you'd have no idea the public access concession was even there, which presumably was the task given to the designer who must hate that this is what their career has come to.)
And when it's not locked, you can go up there, and get a lookout view of some of the city, while being under the evil eye yourself, and constantly feel like you should leave, which you soon do.
> more likely to get planning permission if their new skyscraper included a free public roof terrace
If that's the deal, it's crazy that some of those places are getting away with then discouraging the public from actually going there. Book your visit in advance! Present ID! Photography forbidden! This grumpy security guard will be hovering nearby <3
It's like Nathan For You S03E01 where a store advertises a $1 TV, then tells the drawn in would-be customers to please respect the black tie dress code, crawl through a tiny door, and squeeze past the alligator.
The problem is worse outside London, hotels in conservation areas that get planning for health clubs on the basis that locals can buy memberships too, then quietly withdrawn. A car park that should be open for public paid parking becomes private.
It's a fantastic idea, but enforcement sucks on intangible things like this. In a few years time I'm sure it will be 'closed for maintenance' then never reopen to the public or a nice restaurant will go up there and suddenly you'll need a restaurant booking to use the lift.
You must book in advance because they’re incredibly popular, huge queues, long waits, and capacity limits. The Sky Garden (Fenchurch Building) is huge, beautiful and absolutely packed with people. Many people consider it a London must visit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_Fenchurch_Street#Sky_garden
Capacity may indeed be a reason for requiring advance bookings.
But it doesn't explain the ridiculous security (scanning gates, had to take off my hat and belt, insulin pump was inspected), the prohibition of "professional" photography equipment, prohibition of own food and drinks (again, diabetes, I want to carry some lemonade and a bar for emergency), etc etc.
Is it to counter terrorism? To boost consuming at the establishments? Or is it a lame excuse thats in reality just a higher bar to entry?
> Is it to counter terrorism?
They’re worried that if there was an incident they might get sued for having inadequate security.
I’ve spent a lot of time going to places with security like this (airports, museums etc) and getting a belt with plastic buckles (you can get them at outdoor clothing stores) saves a lot of hassle.
Have you visited The View from The Shard? A very expensive visit, with exactly the same security checks as Sky Garden. Security in tall buildings is high (even if that security is mostly theatre).
"Certain items cannot be brought into The View from The Shard including large bags and backpacks, over the size of 22 x 15 x 8 inches (55 x 38 x 20 cm) or other large equipment."
"We ask guests to walk through metal detectors, which use a low-frequency electromagnetic field to look for metal items."
https://www.theviewfromtheshard.com/frequently-asked-questio...
The Shard has a hotel (Shangri La) with a separate entrance, and no security to get up to the 52nd floor Gong bar (as well as several other restaurants and bar from 30th floor and up)
Next door you need to go through a scanner to get up to the restaurants on the 31st and 32nd floor of the Shard.
Security in these buildings is very arbitrary. I can get that some of the more high profile places feel more of a need for security, and assume that anyone up to no good will perhaps not be the brightest of the bunch and/or will go for more symbolic targets, but still.
Right, the security is all theatre. My comparison is specifically to show that the security at Sky Garden (free) is not implemented to discourage free visitors when The View from The Shard charges lots of money and wants as many visitors as possible and has the same security.
I agree with that. Which tall buildings in London has security or not is really haphazard and absolutely correlates very little with fees.
This is also true for visitors to the offices located in the shard, it's very annoying to unload a overnight bag when trying to visit an office. I always wondered what the purpose was as regular employees skip the security queue
If you graph obesity and excess security, especially these "metal detectors", there is correlation, thus we should all sue.
>Is it to counter terrorism? To boost consuming at the establishments? Or is it a lame excuse thats in reality just a higher bar to entry?
Incentives align among all three.
Ok that one looks legit :)
I was thinking more about his experience with e.g. the last one on the page, Roof Garden at The Post Building:
> I still don't understand why it's here nor why it's open daily, nor why they insist on Photo ID "and a full written name" before they'll let you up. However I didn't get the chance to test this out yesterday because when I arrived the roof terrace was "closed due to essential maintenance work", inconveniencing probably nobody but myself.
Sky Garden is really the only one that does not make it hard. No need to book - just pop up there for with your sandwiches for lunch, and I think it's the best roof garden in city.
You might need to queue for a little while on a weekend or at prime lunchtime.
The others you need to book weeks ahead, so agree with the previous post that they do make it hard. Sky Garden is not one of them.
The odd thing is you certainly used to have book
Lived in london for over a decade, never been and I also don't think I know anyone else who's been.
To be fair it's not just that, you won't find many actual londoners in central full stop unless they're going to work
I wouldn’t say that’s an accurate generalisation.
I’ll often meet and hang out with friends in central London.
> Lived in london for over a decade
> actual londoners
So which is it? Lots of expats in London. They aren’t tourist but they aren’t born-and-bred londoners, are they?
I'm not a proper Londoner but I am English, I stand by my comment though - people who actually grew up in London would be even less likely to be found in central London on a Saturday
I was born in the city I live in and so were my kids. They’ve never visited the #1 tourist attraction, and I only did when I was a kid.
My experience living in the UK was that we’d go off as a family to visit Arundel Castle or one of the hundred other amazing things nearby, and the Brits I worked with would say “oh yeah, I went there on a school trip…” or “oh I’ve heard it’s nice.”
Denizens of a place don’t always appreciate what their location offers. That doesn’t make them cool or better than tourists.
That said, I agree that central London is not somewhere I desperately want to go every day. But there’s a lot of great stuff there.
Yeah true, that's fair enough. And you're right there is good stuff in central especially if you're into cultural stuff (theatre, art galleries etc.) - that stuff is all in central and I absolutely take it for granted, there's only a few cities that can match London for that.
I think I'm just jaded from trying to wade through waddling masses of tourists whenever I make the mistake of going anywhere remotely central on a Saturday or Sunday, but I get why if you're a tourist that stuff probably seems cool
I mean they also seem to charge it? (According to the blogpost) then how is it free to the public?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hfW2q4PW_C8
This is the country where organised marches must have police approval and follow an approved route (and most acute in London). Hardly a surprise!
London's vibe is: 'privately owned, and you're lucky to be here'
Edit: I'm British btw (and currently sat in a pub in London) in case people downvote me thinking I'm a yank lol. There are many people who dislike London and the UK who aren't yanks
In most countries in Europe organized marches and protests must be run by authorities. It's pretty normal here.
Protesting is a legal right but the authorities do have the right to restrict it for public order reasons. For example they often will insist on separate routes to keep conflicting groups apart. It makes sense too.
> This is the country where organised marches must have police approval and follow an approved route
You have to notify the police not get approval. They can "impose conditions and restrictions" for safety or to limit the rights of others to travel freely, after which they'll also be somewhat liable to protect you from counter-protesters, or lunatics trying to drive their car at you.
Just about every country requires some kind of advance notice if its not just a few people walking along the pavement/sidewalk and your going to obstruct traffic or block others movement
https://groups.friendsoftheearth.uk/resources/your-rights-an...
NB. It's article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights[1] which gives us "the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."
Reform's manifesto includes[2]: "Stop the Boats with our 4 Point Plan. Leave the European Convention on Human Rights."
[1] https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/european-convention-h...
[2] Page 5 of https://reformuk.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Reform_UK...
I know that you think you just mitigated the extreme character of what he said? But you exacerbated it.
Exactly my thoughts lol
Disagree on that vibe. The museums are usually free in London, for example. Haven't seen that in many other cities.
Its not as if things are any better in the country that boasts the most about its freedoms regarding access to supposedly public spaces: https://www.instagram.com/780_lord_of_bench
Even within London people dislike each other!
Saw many non-Arsenal fans cheering for PSG yesterday.
There are thousands of protests per year in central London. The larger ones (tens of thousands of people) are going to be disrupting public transport routes than people rely on. There's an approved route so that disruption can be managed. Nothing to do with being 'privately owned'. It also doesn't help that for a large number of people 'protesting' means travelling into London, getting drunk, and fighting.
How many protestors did the U.K. police kill in the last few years, compared to, say, a very free country… like the U.S?
edit: responding to your edit, of course many British people hate London and for many valid reasons, but your reasoning is very American. Very few British people share that American view of freedom and would describe London as “privately owned”.
How many protestors did they arrest?
and the city of London is literally a private corporation.
No, it isn't. It is called 'City of London Corporation' in the sense of being a municipal corporation, but effectively it's just a local authority... except that businesses still get a vote along with citizens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_corporation
The City of London is a novel anachronism making up a square mile that nobody British would ever refer to as “London” nor do they complain about it being “private”.
> but your reasoning is very American.
For god's sake how ridiculous. Give over
What's your basis for commenting on us Brits? You can't even spell UK correctly (we don't use full stops. That's an Americanism / hypercorrection). You spell with a z, so not a Brit
I am no less British than you. I was born in England, raised in England, educated in England, voted in England, my parents were born in England, my grandparents were born in England, my great grandparents were born in England… so on and so forth. I am very sorry that my choice to use American spelling on an American website offends you.
The irony is that the beliefs you’re espousing are an infection caused by U.S. cultural dominance of politics on the Internet. Anti-woke right wing people are heavily influenced by American political attitudes. Do you also believe in Birmingham’s no-go zones?
British people are miserable and cynical and hate everything about our godforsaken country but London being “privately owned” is not one of those things. Civilized protest is not one of those things.
There is a similar trap in walking the Thames path through London. Some is privately owned and you are made to not feel welcome, odd rules, buttons to press etc. Guardian has a 2015 piece https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/feb/24/private-londo...
California has a similar issue where all beaches are legally supposed to be public, but owners of beachfront properties often have different ideas...
https://nypost.com/2024/02/29/business/california-hoa-with-f...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/02/california-w...
https://www.hcn.org/articles/public-lands-a-battle-over-beac...
Taking a chainsaw to said fence on the request of a non-emergency request line would be perfectly legal. They are obstructing public space, no different from a pothole or an abandoned vehicle.
I had a similar experience recently on the other side of the river, though less extreme I think. Between London Bridge and Greenwich there are a few stretches that are ostensibly "public" but not that easy to access. Some are behind gates that are in fact unlocked, so you can just walk through, if you try, but they don't look very welcoming or accessible so I think a lot of people probably don't even bother. Other times the gates are in fact locked for non-residents and you can access the river by some other more roundabout way.
Bit of an aside, but although the area around Greenwich is lovely, I've always preferred walking the Thames Path out west, eg Putney to Richmond. Very peaceful and green, and IIRC all pretty accessible (apart from a stretch of the path near Barnes that is completely underwater when the tide is high).
Doesn't the UK (or at least England) also have some kind of network of public pathways, many of which are on private property? Are there similar conflicts in that system, or does it work differently somehow?
Yes. It's a little different between England & Wales, Scotland, and NI, but public rights of way (footpaths and bridleways) are very much a thing.
My experience is that it works well in general, but some landowners are better than others, and some highway authorities (which enforce the laws) are more zealous than others. Most of the issues I see around me is farmers allowing crops to grow through low use footpaths such that they become impassable.
The other tricky bit of PRoWs is that any path used by the public for 20 years continuously, without force, secrecy, or the landowner's permission, is legally presumed to be a public right of way, even if it isn't shown on the definitive map kept by the local authority. That can lead to legal fights e.g. [1] and [2]. There are also 'permissive footpaths' where landowners have agreed to allow the public to pass, but not become a PRoW. There are also s106 agreements (planning obligations) where developers must allow the public to use land as a footpath. The Thames Path has a mix of these.
In Scotland, there is a more general 'right to roam' which allows anybody to access most land (excepting buildings and their curtilages, military sites, and other obvious exceptions), but there are affirmative duties to maintain PRoWs that don't apply to open access land making them still relevant. England and Wales have some limited open access land as well, but much much less of it. NI has no open access land and (subjectively) fewer public footpaths.
[1] https://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/ramblers-win-court-appeal-1... [2] https://www.ube.ac.uk/whats-happening/articles/pippa-middlet...
LOL!
>City Hall sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment company. Protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission.
This hasn’t been the case since 2022: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Hall,_London_(Newham)
"This" ?
Which this?
They apparently moved the location, but protesting at the new location is still heavily restricted [0] with a dystopian narrative.
> In order to achieve the balance between the rights of those holding a rally and the rights and freedoms of others to go about their business we have put together this guidance and simple application process.
[0] https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/city-halls-buildings-an...
Every single thing in the text you (inaccurately) quoted.
City Hall is no longer on a private estate, no Kuwaiti investment company is involved, and the application process involves no "corporate permission" - you submit a form to the city government, and it sounds like the point is to make sure each rally is allocated a separate area, and they don't deny permission outright.
Please don't be unreasonable.
> Every single thing in the text you (inaccurately) quoted.
Your first sentence makes no sense. It's quoted directly from the Guardian article, not from me.
> it sounds like the point is to make sure each rally is allocated a separate area, and they don't deny permission outright.
FWIW, look at the next article I linked. You're really understating the restrictions for a public, outdoor venue. This is on brand with restrictive public use.
- No noise directed outwards
- no noise after 6PM
- confined to two lawns (that can't fit more than 3k people)
- no sound speakers
- no overnight rallies even if quiet
- leave no trash
- no food for others
- you're strongly advised to fill out a notification form if your group is larger than a dozen people
No, there was a bunch in the middle that you removed.
Most of those restrictions sound pretty standard and reasonable! No amplification is the only one that I’d be upset about as an organizer.
> No, there was a bunch in the middle that you removed.
I didn't remove anything.
It seems you're reading and responding to different discussions.
The article says:
> London’s seat of democratic governance now sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment outfit. John Biggs, the London Assembly member, tells me he has been prevented from doing television interviews outside the building by private security guards who insist he needs a special permit; protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission. “I think that as active citizens we’ve got a reasonable responsibility to test and push at these public/private borders,” he tells me. “It’s clear we’ve got the balance wrong at the moment.”
You “quoted”:
> City Hall sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment company. Protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission.
That’s a summary! But not a quote.
> you are made to not feel welcome, odd rules, buttons to press etc
Or closed for years at a time due to construction.
The equivalent in San Francisco: https://sfpopos.com/
Reading these comments, "The Tragedy of the Commons" [https://pages.mtu.edu/~asmayer/rural_sustain/governance/Hard...] comes to mind: those who frequent London's many little known free roof terraces know that mentioning them here instantly blows their cover.
I built https://exploralista.io exactly for this use case. Still waiting for the universe to make up for my lack of marketing skills.
First CTA is to signup. For what? 'From the Community' section reports 'Failed to fetch'
This is now fixed. Sorry about that, I'd love your feedback on the project.
No need to sign up to see the lists, in theory. The DB is currently down and I'm currently on holiday in China with only my phone :facepalm:
it's a nice idea!
but yes there is very sparse information and instead of examples i get "NetworkError when attempting to fetch resource." and it says "free" here and there but free forever, free until?
The error is now fixed. It would be great if you could try it again! I'd love feedback on this project.
Ah, sorry about the error! I guess it could use some optimisation. It will remain free for the users. I haven't thought about monetisation but for sure it won't be on the final user. Either ads or sponsored places by companies etc. Similar to TripAdvisor
This is so odd to learn about, thank you. I live in Washington State, USA, and almost all of our beaches are public access. We have a bunch of "public terraces" in Seattle and other cities. hopefully London can move beyond this idea of privatizing access to water features of viewing platforms.
What about Crossrail Place in Canary Wharf, doesn't count?
Otherwise there are plenty of other roof terraces which are bars/restaurants. Typically more enjoyable as you don't have to book tickets and you get to enjoy a drink.
When I was younger, I used to think the Shard was daylight robbery. But 16 quid for a signature cocktail and a view (or 12 for a spirit + mixer) is no longer outrageously expensive in London and you'd pay that to go up a skyscraper in many countries anyway. Both Rockefeller and the Empire State are $40+, though you can go outside. Even Aqua Shard, which is apparently in the Michelin guide, "only" charges about 20. Which is bordering on outrageous, but the view is great.
Agree it's worth going up there.
Though while the bar is reasonable, Aqua Shard is overpriced if you're going their to eat (the food is good, but you can get better food for the same/similar price elsewhere, including at Hutong, one floor up).
But if you're going to a bar in the Shard, Gong (52nd floor), Ting (35th) and Hutong (32nd) are all higher up. Gong and Ting also has the advantage that you don't have to pass through that ridiculous security scanner (entrance is via the Shangri La hotel)
I think some people might not count Canary Wharf's various gardens as examples of this because while Canary Wharf is a private estate that is open to the public, the parks and green spaces aren't a quiet strategy to get buildings approved, they're part of the estate's broad strategy to be green and welcoming. Canary Wharf actively encourages visitors to all of their green spaces.
> Alas it also had great views into the apartments at Neo Bankside whose residents ultimately sued and won, thus if you arrive by lift today you can only visit the cafe
bummer
I try to pop to One New Change whenever I’m in London just to visit the terrace there. If you’re in the area, worth a look!
Been to most of these. They're nice.
If you've got friends/fam with you it is definitely worth paying for the observation deck at the shard.
> Tate Modern had high hopes for the 10th floor of the Blatnavik Building with its cafe and a four-sided observation terrace with excellent views of the Thames. Alas it also had great views into the apartments at Neo Bankside whose residents ultimately sued and won, thus if you arrive by lift today you can only visit the cafe.
I was curious about what type of arguments you could make to win a case like this.
"The Supreme Court commented that the degree of overlooking from visitors to the Tate gallery was so extreme it subjected the residents to being “much like being on display in a zoo” and held that there is no reason why constant visual intrusion cannot give rise to liability for nuisance."
https://www.tlt.com/insights-and-events/insight/supreme-cour...
Really strange take, that applies to so many situations where tourists gather
British people don't have curtains?
Not really, it’s very common in the UK to not having curtains or closed curtains even if you live on the street level. You can walk in a town and literally watch TV through the windows.
In a tall apartment / skyscraper I bet not more than 10% ever have or close their curtain. Also they paid those prices to look at that view so they want to do that. (A flat there is £1-5M)
> You can walk in a town and literally watch TV through the windows.
Only if you have a license, right?
Curtains open, telly blaring and the big light on. You could be on any street in Britain.
It affected rich people, wouldn't surprise me if one of them knew the judge.
No need for that. It’s England, preferential treatment depends more on your social class than who you know, in such cases. Knowing powerful people definitely can help in some contexts, but the judiciary is well insulated in that respect.
This was a decision made by five supreme court justices in a 3/2 split, do you have any particular reason to believe there has been corruption involved in this UK litigation?
The case was a very big deal in London. The outcome was not one of bias, but complicated circumstance.
The apartment building was built years before the Tate Modern opened their viewing floor. After the Tate Modern viewing floor opened, visitors to the Tate Modern began photographing and videoing and watching people in the neighbouring apartment building.
The judge reasonably determined that there is some sacrifice of privacy made when choosing to live in a glass apartment building, but the Tate Modern's viewing floor's compromise of privacy was so egregious that it should not be allowed regardless of planning permission.
There are many buildings all over London that look over one another, many of those occupied by very very rich people, it was not corruption.
However, Tate got the permission to build the viewing deck before the apartments were built.
How can privacy be egregiously violated? Isn’t it just you have a window to look in or not? And every building has windows to look in if you choose to not draw the blinds?
If I secretly hide a camera in your bedroom, would the violation of privacy be made more egregious if I then went ahead and broadcast that footage on TV?
>Isn’t it just you have a window to look in or not? And every building has windows to look in if you choose to not draw the blinds?
For example, there would be a pretty big difference between my neighbour being able to see into my apartment and my neighbour organising tour groups to look into my apartment.
I don't mind my neighbour, it is reasonable to expect that my neighbours will be able to see into my apartment. I however could not reasonably expect that my neighbours would host some sort of organised viewing activity on a regular basis.
Isn't it on the individuals occupying the apartment to use curtains of some sort if they don't want to be seen? Unless I'm missing context the museum didn't organize tour groups to specially look into the apartments
> Isn't it on the individuals occupying the apartment to use curtains of some sort if they don't want to be seen?
Sure, but the problem here was explicitly not the individuals occupying the apartments being seen.
>Unless I'm missing context the museum didn't organize tour groups to specially look into the apartments
From the court ruling: "Visitors in the viewing gallery frequently look into the claimants' flats and take photographs, and less frequently view the claimants and their flats with binoculars."
"Photographs of the flats are posted on social media by visitors. On the platform Instagram there were 124 posts in the period between June 2016 and April 2018"
I do not think it's acceptable to subject anyone to this, be they rich or poor.
Well maybe don’t live in a city if you don’t want people to see in your house? I mean seriously floor to ceiling windows.. what the f do you expect?
I don't mind people seeing into my flat. I would very much mind the specific, egregious behaviour described in the court case.
Actually, sounds like they had a much better solution than moving out of the city: they appealed to a judge, who agreed with them. Sounds like you’re the one out of step with reality here.
Curtains were invented several hundred years ago because of this issue.
I didn't know they had instagram and smartphones back then, those were key elements here.
Come on, this was just gross by Tate and the supreme court was right to put a stop to it. I visited the extension before it opened, it was obvious this was going to be a problem.
A busy viewing terrace is not an ordinary use of space, building one looking right into private homes isn't cool regardless of how wealthy the residents of those homes are.
Every viewing terrace in cities I've been to have a view that lets you see in other people apartment. That's pretty much expected in cities, if you have large glass windows people can see you, and that's why curtains exist. I don't really see how the terrace is the issue here.
I'm looking at the pictures in this article and that doesn't seem egregious: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-64481260
>I'm looking at the pictures in this article and that doesn't seem egregious: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-64481260
That's just a function of the lenses being used. The distance is 34 metres, you could see very well into the flats.
I've been on the viewing platform, you had a very good view into the rather nice looking flats. Most people who came on the platform spent a good chunk of time staring at those flats, because they happen to be one of the more interesting things to view from the platform.
You might be surprised to find out how few people on the very progressive r/london subreddit were upset by this supreme court decision, probably because they were actually familiar with the situation: https://www.reddit.com/r/london/comments/10qqey4/flat_owners...
I am looking at this building on the map and it is surrounded by water, hotels, and restaurants. That doesn’t seem like a pure residential area to me. If you don’t want public to see in your house don’t live next to a museum? This is rich people problems and that’s why it lost like 4 times before somehow winning the final. 100 rich people or 10k museum visitors. Hmmmm who should we prioritize.
> If you don’t want public to see in your house don’t live next to a museum?
That's simply not what the court case was about. I pasted a bit from the ruling in a sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48345234
Can’t all tall buildings see into neighboring buildings? I’ve often seen into peoples houses and watched them eat dinner etc.
Yes? That wasn't the complaint.
Do you have 20+ people looking into your home all day long, taking photos and posting them on instagram?
(This goes on and on, and at no point does it sound any better for Tate)I think it would be slightly different if you built and advertised a viewing gallery for that purpose.
Supreme Court judges do not express "takes". They make legal judgements and express legal opinion based on years of experience and deep knowledge of the law. They deserve a bit more respect than a likening to some random Redditor having a "take"
You're describing what a take is... It's not a reddit term. A supreme court isn't a holy entity that requires special deference or language when talking about their activity. What a ridiculous reaction
Note that this comment does not apply to every country.
Good thing the post is about the UK and we here are capable of staying on topic
Really cool!!