Guess the developer should have installed privacy glass. It's one of the downsides of living in a city with other buildings just across the street.
Just because you bought a condo, doesn't mean that you get to shut everyone else down.
It is worth noting that the museum limited viewing hours on the platform to exclude evening hours when people are more likely to be home, but the condo owners still want it closed permanently. They want to have their city view, but deny the public that same city view, even though they knew the museum platform was there when they bought their condos.
Source:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ghbors-in-tate-modern-privacy-case/ar-BBTu5Bh
Just because you bought a condo, doesn't mean that you get to shut everyone else down.
As well as the art on the gallery's walls, visitors to Tate Modern in London have been able to stare at an unusual sight for the past few years: the apartments opposite.
In 2017, residents of four of the apartments mounted a legal challenge demanding that Tate close that side of the platform or at least put up screens, citing a "relentless" invasion of privacy from onlookers.
But on Tuesday, the British High Court ruled against their case. "These properties are impressive, and no doubt there are great advantages to be enjoyed in such extensive glassed views," Justice Anthony Mann said in his decision. "But that in effect comes at a price in terms of privacy."
The platform, with its panoramic views of London landmarks such as St. Paul's Cathedral and the Houses of Parliament, receives hundreds of thousands of visitors a year.
In their complaint, the residents said that the ability to look into their properties meant the apartments were no longer "a secure home for young children." One claimant said he had discovered that a photograph of him had been posted on Instagram.
Lawyers for the claimants had told the judge that their clients did not want to use blinds because that would obscure the views they "consider to be one of the key advantages to the flats."
Tate Modern pointed out that plans for the construction of the platform were public knowledge when the apartments were sold. The development received its original planning permission at about the same time as the apartments, the gallery added.
"I am not indulging in any criticism of the claimants or the developers; nor am I criticizing the architectural design," the judge said in his ruling. But "the architectural style in this case," he added, "has the consequence of an increased exposure to the outside world."
It is worth noting that the museum limited viewing hours on the platform to exclude evening hours when people are more likely to be home, but the condo owners still want it closed permanently. They want to have their city view, but deny the public that same city view, even though they knew the museum platform was there when they bought their condos.
Source:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...ghbors-in-tate-modern-privacy-case/ar-BBTu5Bh