Hacker News

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.

dgellow 3 hours ago [ - ]

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

l23k4 2 hours ago [ - ]

>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...

bix6 5 hours ago [ - ]

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.

l23k4 4 hours ago [ - ]

> 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

therealdrag0 8 hours ago [ - ]

Can’t all tall buildings see into neighboring buildings? I’ve often seen into peoples houses and watched them eat dinner etc.

l23k4 8 hours ago [ - ]

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?

  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)

Planktonne 8 hours ago [ - ]

I think it would be slightly different if you built and advertised a viewing gallery for that purpose.