back
162 comments
> 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in conservation areas that get planning for health clubs on the basis that locals can buy memberships too, then quietly withdrawn.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.

Same with the "affordable housing" criteria of new build housing developments. They'll accidentally forget to build the affordable part then get a slap on the wrist afterwards, or build much fewer than were in the plans, or build whatever they want then apply to regularisation afterwards.
Apart from the "maintenance" thing, how are these "untangible"? Needing a restaurant reservation or whatever is not free.

This shouldn't be hard to enforce.

They become locations to film movies and tv shows. Conveniant views of london without need to close off a "public" area.
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?

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.

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

In the article, all the pictures are empty. Not a single person to be seen in any of the pictures.
Even if there's no door charge, you know that this is part of an ongoing effort to eliminate any place where the "wrong people" might congregate. Eliminating third spaces for youth and poor/homeless people. It's like putting a bar across the middle of a bench so people can't lie down - it's meant to punish poor people and it also makes things worse for everyone else, but our society finds seeing poor people to be the least comfortable thing possible.
This is basically a lose-lose situation: extra bureaucracy for development projects that actually benefits the local residents (planning applications can get to thousands of pages long, and the whole process takes a really long time [0]), and local residents don't actually get the benefits intended by policies like this. The only people this benefits are those who have a lot of money to throw at things like this.

[0]: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/london/article/shoreditch-works-...

If you think about the potential risks, it is hard to come up with a different model.

The roof has a maximum capacity, not just physically, but for safe evacuation in case of a sudden problem. Hence the limits on attendance.

You'd like to prevent some idiotic or predatory behavior - no one should be able to throw things down onto the street, take over half of the available space for their influencer recordings or unpack a rope and start an inpromptu tightrope walking performance. Roofs often host telecommunication equipment which is expensive and has some strategic value, you'd like to prevent someone from damaging it or at least have a clear identity of a person that did just that.

It is also a place with very limited escape routes, so any panic may translate into crushed people. E.g. no guns, even empty ones, no explosives, nothing that is easily flammable.

This was pretty much my thought as well. If this was done in the US they'd somehow structure access so that it was impossible to actually go there and enjoy the place. The city council would laud it as an accomplishment expanding access to public spaces to all citizens
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

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.

in fairness there's a big green sign, but yeah, enraging. https://maps.app.goo.gl/f2QdWzgY35ci827P8
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...

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).

LOL!

>City Hall sits entirely on a private estate owned by a Kuwaiti investment company. Protesters are not allowed to gather without corporate permission.

> you are made to not feel welcome, odd rules, buttons to press etc

Or closed for years at a time due to construction.

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?
The equivalent in San Francisco: https://sfpopos.com/
Interesting!

That site has photos of ~40 locations, about half of those listed on the government-maintained list (which lacks photos): https://data.sfgov.org/Culture-and-Recreation/Privately-Owne...

If you want to find the one that's nearest to you, you can look here (no photos): https://tools.encona.com/sfpopos

There's a Los Angeles one also, https://planning.lacity.gov/preservation-design/privately-ow... but the linked arcgis map doesn't work for me? https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/225e307c3ad34e588fa7536...
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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
I built https://exploralista.io exactly for this use case. Still waiting for the universe to make up for my lack of marketing skills.
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?

First CTA is to signup. For what? 'From the Community' section reports 'Failed to fetch'
I think Japan has something similar, does anyone else know? A lot of big buildings have free/open roof terraces.

Most are fairly claustrophobic. The Ikebukuro Seibu building had an amazing, open roof garden with this big reflecting pool round table: https://danzuka.earth/019_seibu-ikebukuro-roof-garden/ . It was pretty quiet, and it was especially great because there are basically no public tables in Ikebukuro, so you could buy food at the shops below and eat it on the roof (plus it had toilets, trash cans, and drink vending machines!)

They just demolished it and replaced 70% of the space with a big BBQ restaurant though. So I feel like either whatever legal requirement they had to create the space must have expired, or maybe it was used as part of the initial pitch when they were getting permits for the building and now that it's established they can walk back guarantees or whatever...

I've been in some of these in a different capital city. It's worth it, the visits have informed be what kind of person I'm. It's a subtle feeling of waste, seeing the people queue to the elevator, and then going all the way up to see some bushes growing in misery but enough concrete and rooftops to, well, keep you assured you are in a city. Many of my friends enjoy those places. I just find it way nicer to go for a long stroll in the woods.
> 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

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"
It affected rich people, wouldn't surprise me if one of them knew the judge.
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.

British people don't have curtains?
> 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!
Can you go up without going to the restaurant?
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.

Really cool!!