4 ms·
> 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.
by dgellow 5mo ago
> 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-court-judgment-spoils-the-view-from-the-tate-modern-museum https://www.tlt.com/insights-and-events/insight/supreme-cour...
Really strange take, that applies to so many situations where tourists gather
- RobotToaster 5mo agoIt affected rich people, wouldn't surprise me if one of them knew the judge.
- l23k4 5mo agoThis 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?
- fontain 5mo agoThe 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.
- ZeWaka 5mo agoHowever, Tate got the permission to build the viewing deck before the apartments were built.
- therealdrag0 5mo agoHow 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?
- l23k4 5mo agoIf 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.
- cindyllm 5mo ago[dead]
- kergonath 5mo agoNo 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.
- l23k4 5mo agoCome 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.
- therealdrag0 5mo agoCan’t all tall buildings see into neighboring buildings? I’ve often seen into peoples houses and watched them eat dinner etc.
- Planktonne 5mo agoI think it would be slightly different if you built and advertised a viewing gallery for that purpose.
- l23k4 5mo agoYes? That wasn't the complaint. 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)
- bix6 5mo agoI 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.
- gib444 5mo agoSupreme 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"
- ZeWaka 5mo agoNote that this comment does not apply to every country.
- gib444 5mo agoGood thing the post is about the UK and we here are capable of staying on topic
- dgellow 5mo agoYou'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
- AngryData 5mo agoAnd? We have countless examples of Supreme Court and other judges twisting laws beyond recognition. Just look at all the crazy stuff that invokes the commerce clause which is obviously not what anyone who wrote it ever intended or anyone who reads it to expect. Supreme Court rulings should be the most highly scrutinized and criticized of all legal rulings, and include the ethical and moral implications behind them.
- meindnoch 5mo agoBritish people don't have curtains?
- BloondAndDoom 5mo agoNot 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)
- walthamstow 5mo agoCurtains open, telly blaring and the big light on. You could be on any street in Britain.
- toast0 5mo ago> You can walk in a town and literally watch TV through the windows. Only if you have a license, right?