If the residents of Neo Bankside had won their legal battle against Tate Modern's rooftop viewing platform, it would have set a dangerous precedent for London, says Owen Hatherley.

It's not often that a judgement of any kind in Britain goes against the interests of private property and in favour of the untrammelled enjoyment of a public space. For that reason if nothing else, anyone who actually enjoys living in cities should applaud Tate Modern's victory over the residents of Neo Bankside.
In response to people actually using the 10th floor viewing platform in the Switch House, Herzog and de Meuron's monolithic brick extension, residents of these three towers of luxury flats ? built when the extension and its viewing platform had already received planning permission ? had tried to get it closed, citing the alleged invasion of privacy that came with people being able to see inside the winter gardens of their flats. Surprisingly, if entirely reasonably, the judge in the case ruled that they could do something very simple: get some curtains.
If it had gone the other way, the precedent set would have been alarming; why not close the public steps up to Wren's Monument, in case anyone using it can see inside the dealings of city office blocks" But it's worth reflecting on how we got to the situation where the residents actually thought they had a case.
If it had gone the other way, the precedent set would have been alarming
Tate Modern was the spur for an extremely radical...