One resident counted 84 people photographing the flats in 1½ hours and discovered a photo of himself posted on Instagram to 1,027 followers. Another said he was constantly watched, waved at, photographed and filmed by people on the viewing platform.
The Tate Modern replies that residents who object to all the attention should draw their blinds or install curtains. They say the viewing platform is an important public amenity with a 360 degree view of London and the surrounding area, and the residents "have no unencumbered right to enjoy their own view."
What amazing arrogance and contempt for the flat-owners. Why on earth should they have to put up with being watched all day, like animals in the zoo? Why should they be appropriated for other people's entertainment?
If thousands of people were idly gawping at my house all day, I would object strongly. Of course it's an invasion of privacy. But because the Tate Modern is a major public organisation and tourist attraction, they think they can ignore the locals and do whatever they like.
So while the flat-owners have no right to enjoy their own view, the Tate's visitors can enjoy a 360 degree view whenever they like, with no restrictions. Perhaps they should be advised to view the works of art inside the building, and not the local residents?
I hope the flat-owners win. The Tate Modern needs to be put in its place.
Pic: The viewing platform and the nearby block of flats
What?
ReplyDeleteWhat extraordinary arrogance and I imagine non-consultation with affected residents.
I've seen various forms of this invasive crap over the years, most often in private dwellings erected above other private properties but a public institution doing it takes my breath away.
I hope they win.
XO
WWW
I agree with you one hundred percent but, there is another aspect that needs to be considered/
ReplyDeleteIt has been a long time since I visited the Tate but, I don't recollect a block of flats that could be seen from it. I may be wrong but, surely, this is a factor to be taken into account?
Which came first, the Tate or the block of flats? A pre-existing condition will swing the verdict in favour of the pre-existing party to the dispute. I speak from personal experience.
www: The Tate Modern has systematically ignored residents' complaints ever since the viewing platform was built. It's taking a court case to make them listen.
ReplyDeleteRamana: The first six towers of the apartment complex (the Neo Bankside Building) were completed in 2013. The viewing platform (part of the new Tate Modern extension) was opened in June 2016. So the first flat residents were not aware of the planned viewing platform, unless their solicitors had spotted the platform on the gallery's planning application and realised its implications.
Their solicitors probably did not check the planning application....so sue the solicitors for negligence.
ReplyDeleteApart from that, what arrogance on behalf of The Tate Modern.
Good Lord! :(
ReplyDeleteI agree with you too Nick. is this just another example of PRIVACY GONE for most of the world? even in my own apartment complex... I have had to get used to lights on the buildings that shine into my windows at night. yes. I can close my blinds and pull curtains but I LOVE fresh air. it's so hot here in the summer I wait all year to enjoy having the windows open! now it's like living on an airport runway with landing lights. they were not here when I moved in. and we were given no choice in it. it's all under new management. that old saying you can't legislate morality is true. I hope they win their case. but I fear they won't. it's all about power and money now.
ReplyDeleteHelen: Yes, I do wonder why none of the conveyancing solicitors noticed this detail on the planning application (which was approved back in 2009 and was freely available).
ReplyDeleteJean: It's a shocking display of brazen disrespect for the local community.
Tammy: So why were these powerful lights installed? Was it for security reasons? In any case, they shouldn't be shining directly into your windows. As you say, these major changes are so often brought in without properly consulting those affected.
ReplyDeletePeople are ignoring the sign? Shocking! Lol!
ReplyDeleteI do wonder about that style of modern apartment with floor to ceiling Windows. Wouldn't even people at street level be able to see inside at night if you have the lights on?
Bijoux: I guess they might be able to look into your flat, but there's a difference between the odd curious passer-by and thousands of people on a viewing platform.
ReplyDeleteIf they don't have a case because the Tate had planned it before the flats were built, then one-way screen would be the logical solution. Something like this, only a bit fancier?
ReplyDeleteActually they could have some fun with it --- our local supermarket had some one-way screens on a couple of windows. You could see out but people looking from the outside just saw advertisements for the store. How about putting up signs saying something like, "The Tate sucks! Voyeurs go home!" Not a perfect solution, but at least one could make a statement rather than just being a victim.
ReplyDelete"The Tate sucks! Voyeurs go home!" LOLOL! love this Monk!
ReplyDeleteand Nick... as to mine... they're decorative lights. just extremely bright. I doubt it was even very well thought through. I didn't think we had any security problems but perhaps that's what they're for? I have no idea. I'm looking elsewhere leisurely. I have a whole year before my lease is up. in the meantime I am just putting up with it.
The Guardian says, "Work began on the Neo Bankside apartment blocks in 2009, the same year the revised proposal for the Tate Modern extension, complete with viewing platform, was approved. It is understood that the developers, Native Land, did not object to the Switch House plans."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/apr/19/tate-modern-viewing-platform-prompts-writ-from-luxury-flat-dwellers
That's probably relevant in the court case.
Jean: That's a great idea. "The Tate sucks! Voyeurs go home!" would soon close the viewing platform for good!
ReplyDeleteTammy: The lights aren't very decorative for the residents, I guess. More like being on a film set!
Jean: There's contributory negligence all round, I think. The viewing platform is obviously a massive invasion of privacy, but the conveyancing solicitors seem also to have been negligent in not spotting the viewing platform on the plans, and not bringing it to their clients' attention. And presumably the residents themselves could have looked at the plans for the extension to check there was nothing they objected to.
ReplyDeleteThe case continues today.
I have visited Tate Modern and consider it to be a thoroughly Good Thing. However, on this, based on what I've read, I have to say they're plain wrong. Their remarks regarding blinds and curtains would make my blood boil if we're one of those affected.
ReplyDeleteSackerson: I've been to the Tate Modern several times. I thought the new extension was a big disappointment. I thought it would be crammed with all the stuff they normally keep in storage, but there wasn't much there at all.
ReplyDeleteExpecting the locals to keep their blinds drawn all day to avoid thousands of gawpers staring at them is outrageous. It's surprising the viewing platform was approved by the planning authorities.
Which came first, the flats high rise or the Museum? That has some bearing. How about installing windows on flats people can see out of, but others can’t see in? There is such glass. That way everybody can be happy.
ReplyDeleteI’m reminded of where my brother lived in Kailua, HI years ago. We drove past a house development that had been built across from a long-standing sewage processing plant. Sometime after homeowners decided they were a big enough block, they sued the treatment plant over periodic objectionable odors — present before all those houses built, sold, occupied. Seemed quite unfair to me city and previously existing residents should shoulder these new homeowners costs they were seeking, as they knew where they had purchased and been told of winds carrying odors at times my brother said, but I soon forgot about it, so don’t know how it turned out.
Will be interested to know how this turns out.
Just read comments above and sounds like not clear who who dropped the ball — intentional or not? Still think one way glass could solve problem which I see Cheerful Monk proposed, also. Of course, maybe such glass keeps out sunlight, any light — not so good.
I have security screen doors that allow me to see out, light in, but people outside can’t tell if I’m there.
nick,
ReplyDeletePlease do tell us how it turns out.
Joared: But why should the residents have to install new windows simply to foil all the voyeurs?
ReplyDeleteI agree about the sewage plant. If it had been there for a while and everyone knew about it, why should the new homeowners be entitled to any compensation?
Jean: I certainly will, if I hear the result. Journalists have an unfortunate habit of reporting on the start of a sensational court case, then forgetting all about it and not reporting the result!
ReplyDeletei cant think of an opinion but i want you to know i'm reading
ReplyDeleteKylie: I await the court's decision, and your conclusion, with interest.
ReplyDeleteWalking around naked might deter viewers.
ReplyDeleteLiz: I don't know about that. It might be an added attraction. The viewing platform would be jammed with those who get excited by human flesh.
ReplyDeletemaybe I'm just having a couple of grumpy days but I am very tempted just to yell "First world problem!!!!"
ReplyDeleteThe people living in luxury high rises near the Tate modern are surely some of the most privileged in the world. They didn't do their homework properly and they forced to rub shoulders (be it in an unexpected way) with the viewing public. For once in their lives privilege didn't buy what they expected. My heart bleeds.
Kylie: A first world problem maybe, but still a significant one. Caused by stupidity on all sides - the Tate Modern not realising the obvious invasion of privacy (or ignoring it) and the residents and their solicitors not realising there was a viewing platform and all that entailed.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, these super-privileged flat-owners are being forced to confront the grubby hoi-polloi for a change. How tragic!
Wowza. That's so not cool.
ReplyDeleteBut here's an interesting question - if the flat residents chose to stand around naked in their flat or have sex in front of their window, could they be charged with public indecency?
Agent: I would think that if they're naked or having sex in full view of the general public on the viewing platform, that must surely qualify as public indecency.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t suggest residents had to pay for installing new windows. I presume any negotiations between the residents and Museum would resolve that issue, or if a lawsuit that would determine.
ReplyDeleteJoared: Ideally any judgment that approves of the Tate Modern's viewing platform should require the Tate to install one-way windows in the flats. But they would probably resist the enormous cost of doing so in dozens of flats.
ReplyDelete