London's Free Roof Terraces

https://diamondgeezer.blogspot.com/2026/05/londons-free-roof-terraces.html

by zeristor • 2 months ago

332 154 2 months ago

diamondgeezer.blogspot.com

d1sxeyes2• 2 months ago

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!

cjrp• 2 months ago

Can you go up without going to the restaurant?

d1sxeyes2• 2 months ago

As of ~3 years ago (and according to this: https://www.onenewchange.com/en/roof-terrace#:~:text=Open%20... ) I think so yeah, but the restaurant/bar try really hard to make it look like you're not supposed to be there without actually telling you that you're not allowed to be there.

rented_mule• 2 months ago

The equivalent in San Francisco: https://sfpopos.com/

rahimnathwani• 2 months ago

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

schlauerfox• 2 months ago

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...

mgaunard2• 2 months ago

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.

fontain8• 2 months ago

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.

joshvm• 2 months ago

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.

vidarh3• 2 months ago

Agree it's worth going up there.

Though while the bar is reasonable, Aqua Shard is overpriced if you're going their to eat (the food is good, but you can get better food for the same/similar price elsewhere, including at Hutong, one floor up).

But if you're going to a bar in the Shard, Gong (52nd floor), Ting (35th) and Hutong (32nd) are all higher up. Gong and Ting also has the advantage that you don't have to pass through that ridiculous security scanner (entrance is via the Shangri La hotel)

mgaunard2• 2 months ago

Waltz is 19 quid, but it's arguably the best cocktail in London.

The Connaught is up to 40, but more of a fancy establishment.

cbdevidal• 2 months ago

Really cool!!

dgellow5• 2 months ago

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

RobotToaster3• 2 months ago

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

fontain8• 2 months ago

The case was a very big deal in London. The outcome was not one of bias, but complicated circumstance.

The apartment building was built years before the Tate Modern opened their viewing floor. After the Tate Modern viewing floor opened, visitors to the Tate Modern began photographing and videoing and watching people in the neighbouring apartment building.

The judge reasonably determined that there is some sacrifice of privacy made when choosing to live in a glass apartment building, but the Tate Modern's viewing floor's compromise of privacy was so egregious that it should not be allowed regardless of planning permission.

There are many buildings all over London that look over one another, many of those occupied by very very rich people, it was not corruption.

l23k416• 2 months ago

This was a decision made by five supreme court justices in a 3/2 split, do you have any particular reason to believe there has been corruption involved in this UK litigation?

kergonath• 2 months ago

No need for that. It’s England, preferential treatment depends more on your social class than who you know, in such cases. Knowing powerful people definitely can help in some contexts, but the judiciary is well insulated in that respect.

l23k416• 2 months ago

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.

therealdrag03• 2 months ago

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

bix65• 2 months 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.

dgellow5• 2 months 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

gib4445• 2 months ago

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"

ZeWaka3• 2 months ago

Note that this comment does not apply to every country.

dgellow5• 2 months ago

You're describing what a take is... It's not a reddit term. A supreme court isn't a holy entity that requires special deference or language when talking about their activity. What a ridiculous reaction

AngryData• 2 months ago

And? We have countless examples of Supreme Court and other judges twisting laws beyond recognition. Just look at all the crazy stuff that invokes the commerce clause which is obviously not what anyone who wrote it ever intended or anyone who reads it to expect.

Supreme Court rulings should be the most highly scrutinized and criticized of all legal rulings, and include the ethical and moral implications behind them.

meindnoch• 2 months ago

British people don't have curtains?

BloondAndDoom2• 2 months ago

Not really, it’s very common in the UK to not having curtains or closed curtains even if you live on the street level. You can walk in a town and literally watch TV through the windows.

In a tall apartment / skyscraper I bet not more than 10% ever have or close their curtain. Also they paid those prices to look at that view so they want to do that. (A flat there is £1-5M)

lorenzotenti5• 2 months ago

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

croisillon2• 2 months ago

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?

lorenzotenti5• 2 months ago

Ah, sorry about the error! I guess it could use some optimisation. It will remain free for the users. I haven't thought about monetisation but for sure it won't be on the final user. Either ads or sponsored places by companies etc. Similar to TripAdvisor

lorenzotenti5• 2 months ago

The error is now fixed. It would be great if you could try it again! I'd love feedback on this project.

simonhfrost• 2 months ago

First CTA is to signup. For what? 'From the Community' section reports 'Failed to fetch'

lorenzotenti5• 2 months ago

No need to sign up to see the lists, in theory. The DB is currently down and I'm currently on holiday in China with only my phone :facepalm:

lorenzotenti5• 2 months ago

This is now fixed. Sorry about that, I'd love your feedback on the project.

flotzam2• 2 months ago

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.

gib4445• 2 months ago

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

deaux• 2 months ago

Its not as if things are any better in the country that boasts the most about its freedoms regarding access to supposedly public spaces: https://www.instagram.com/780_lord_of_bench

fontain8• 2 months ago

How many protestors did the U.K. police kill in the last few years, compared to, say, a very free country… like the U.S?

edit: responding to your edit, of course many British people hate London and for many valid reasons, but your reasoning is very American. Very few British people share that American view of freedom and would describe London as “privately owned”.

wolvoleo• 2 months ago

In most countries in Europe organized marches and protests must be run by authorities. It's pretty normal here.

Protesting is a legal right but the authorities do have the right to restrict it for public order reasons. For example they often will insist on separate routes to keep conflicting groups apart. It makes sense too.

baxtr• 2 months ago

Even within London people dislike each other!

Saw many non-Arsenal fans cheering for PSG yesterday.

basisword• 2 months ago

There are thousands of protests per year in central London. The larger ones (tens of thousands of people) are going to be disrupting public transport routes than people rely on. There's an approved route so that disruption can be managed. Nothing to do with being 'privately owned'. It also doesn't help that for a large number of people 'protesting' means travelling into London, getting drunk, and fighting.

ad_hockey• 2 months ago

Disagree on that vibe. The museums are usually free in London, for example. Haven't seen that in many other cities.

helsinkiandrew• 2 months ago

This is the country where organised marches must have police approval and follow an approved route

You have to notify the police not get approval. They can "impose conditions and restrictions" for safety or to limit the rights of others to travel freely, after which they'll also be somewhat liable to protect you from counter-protesters, or lunatics trying to drive their car at you.

Just about every country requires some kind of advance notice if its not just a few people walking along the pavement/sidewalk and your going to obstruct traffic or block others movement

https://groups.friendsoftheearth.uk/resources/your-rights-an...

fontain8• 2 months ago

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

flotzam2• 2 months ago

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.

berkes• 2 months ago

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?

ifwinterco3• 2 months ago

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

BloondAndDoom2• 2 months ago

I mean they also seem to charge it? (According to the blogpost) then how is it free to the public?

Jnr• 2 months ago

Last time I was in London for a day, I simply reserved a table at one of the restaurants at Sky Garden and got in without any queues. Maybe I booked it on the previous evening, but not much earlier than that.

0x1ceb00da• 2 months ago

In the article, all the pictures are empty. Not a single person to be seen in any of the pictures.

matt-p2• 2 months ago

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.

sandworm101• 2 months ago

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

sumo89• 2 months ago

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.

vladvasiliu• 2 months ago

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.

shepherdjerred• 2 months ago

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hfW2q4PW_C8

nialv7• 2 months ago

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-...

cucumber37328422• 2 months ago

The government benefits by not having to deal with penny pinching developers who can't just make whatever concessions strike their fancy.

Basically their jobs are easier at the expense of the people.

inglor_cz• 2 months ago

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.

hdndjsbbs• 2 months ago

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.

sidewndr462• 2 months ago

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

nekooooo• 2 months ago

sf has POPOs and you're sort of right - they were pretty easy to access 10 years ago, but the pandemic gave them enough cover to mostly shut these down or heavily discourage access - though plenty remain open : https://sfpopos.com/

rbbydotdev• 2 months ago

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

softgrow• 2 months ago

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...

caminante5• 2 months ago

LOL!

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

rafram5• 2 months ago

This hasn’t been the case since 2022: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Hall,_London_(Newham)

NoboruWataya• 2 months ago

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).

globular-toast2• 2 months ago

I think the south side is the "official" Thames path, but I did think through London the north side was just as doable. I've walked the entire south side but not tried the north yet.

I do recall several difficult bits in the area you describe. One part seemed to have some new "food market" development, which was completely closed when we tried to go through. It got weirder the further we got and we questioned whether we'd gone wrong somehow. Eventually the path just stopped forcing us to double back and make for the road which added a mile or two to the walk.

We haven't had any such problems along to the west, all the way to Maidenhead so far.

gwerbin• 2 months ago

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?

_n_b_2• 2 months ago

Yes. It's a little different between England & Wales, Scotland, and NI, but public rights of way (footpaths and bridleways) are very much a thing.

My experience is that it works well in general, but some landowners are better than others, and some highway authorities (which enforce the laws) are more zealous than others. Most of the issues I see around me is farmers allowing crops to grow through low use footpaths such that they become impassable.

The other tricky bit of PRoWs is that any path used by the public for 20 years continuously, without force, secrecy, or the landowner's permission, is legally presumed to be a public right of way, even if it isn't shown on the definitive map kept by the local authority. That can lead to legal fights e.g. [1] and [2]. There are also 'permissive footpaths' where landowners have agreed to allow the public to pass, but not become a PRoW. There are also s106 agreements (planning obligations) where developers must allow the public to use land as a footpath. The Thames Path has a mix of these.

In Scotland, there is a more general 'right to roam' which allows anybody to access most land (excepting buildings and their curtilages, military sites, and other obvious exceptions), but there are affirmative duties to maintain PRoWs that don't apply to open access land making them still relevant. England and Wales have some limited open access land as well, but much much less of it. NI has no open access land and (subjectively) fewer public footpaths.

[1] https://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/ramblers-win-court-appeal-1... [2] https://www.ube.ac.uk/whats-happening/articles/pippa-middlet...

Pikamander2• 2 months ago

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...

mapt2• 2 months ago

Taking a chainsaw to said fence on the request of a non-emergency request line would be perfectly legal. They are obstructing public space, no different from a pothole or an abandoned vehicle.

mr_toad2• 2 months ago

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

Or closed for years at a time due to construction.

Havoc• 2 months ago

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.

bookofjoe• 2 months ago

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.

galleywest200• 2 months ago

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.

neilv2• 2 months ago

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.

thazework• 2 months ago

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

neilv2• 2 months ago

Good catch. I've walked past that many times, including when actively looking for the entrance, and never saw that sign.

Maybe because it's about 4 stories up, almost straight up from the sidewalk, and at a bit of an angle if you're not coming from the bridge, and above something that says it's just advertising the parking garage to cars. Oh, and looks like blocked from sidewalk by trees, if you're coming from the neighborhood rather than the bridge. So maybe visible to passing cars, but not to the generally car-free people in the neighborhood.

(The first couple times of actively looking for the entrance, I walked past it, before doubling back, and finding the white-on-light-pink signage at street level.)

rendaw• 2 months ago

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...

dsign• 2 months ago

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.

London's Free Roof Terraces

Related Stories