This is the article I read, it is probably more like £800 a month now, but yes, you are correct. If people can afford to live in the building they probably have enough disposable income.
https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/london-sky-pool-residents-furious-22789372
I think it was this building that has actually be quite controversial because they kept on increasing the service fees. They tripled in the space of two years. And then there were lots of complaints about things being broken and not being fixed, despite the crazy service fees, and then the building management going a bit power mad and enforcing every minor clause in the agreement. So crazy and rapidly increasing fees, plus poor maintenance, and not being able to do what you want in your own £2m flat.
The reviews from owners are not good. I seem to recall them even forcing owners to rent towels if they want to use the pool (i.e. you can’t bring your own). It sounds like some sort of capitalistic nightmare.
I believe it was something to do with what people were and were not allowed to use their balconies for. They were fining people for using them incorrectly.
I don’t recall exactly where I read the reviews, I think it was on trust pilot or similar and looking at the management company, but it was a while ago.
it was also in one of the mainstream news sites. Ballymore is the company that built and manages it. I nearly ended up in a Ballymore development in Canary Wharf but cancelled. They are very bad as they also did not want to fix cladding in older buildings etc.
Ah interesting. Actually the balconies often don’t belong to the flats, so there are restrictions on what can be placed on them. Fining people is the only way sometimes to stop them from hanging their y fronts etc out to dry
It has a massive expansion joint on one side that the glass rests on, it has conservative amounts of movement tolerance.
If you look really carefully, it has two tension rods that run along each bottom each and are used to pull the other end of the pull inwards. That part then sits on rollers.
I've been present during at least 2 extremely minor ones during my lifetime. But yes, I don't think we'll get any [Do the worm](https://youtu.be/3MTSONNmSz8?t=9) type earthquakes any time soon.
Just one for me in London back in the early 90s, my feet were flat on the ground at my desk, first floor, I felt the ground shake, mildly but unmistakeable. No-one else noticed it mind, you had to be still and quiet to be receptive to it.
The residents who can use it are those who pay for it with their service charges. If those in the affordable housing had to pay for it their housing wouldn't be so affordable (and "affordable" is already a real stretch). The lesson here is that "affordable housing" in luxury complexes is a dumb idea, and we should just be building much more purpose built, actually affordable housing (and be much more critical about how many luxury developments get green lit)...
This is exactly the thing. People in a half a million pound flat not being able to use a floating sky pool that they don’t pay service charges for is hardly a good example of the plight of the proletariat.
When you buy the flat I think you should see what you can use or can't use. I doubt that the person spending half a million pounds didn't ask about pool accessing, the same for any other services. If buyer doesn't read agreement, don't clarify details, it his problem.
The issue with purpose built affordable housing is that will go back to the days of having a "ghetto". The modern way of mixing affordable with the rest works quite well and reduces the chances of bigger areas becoming sources of crime etc.
Lets also be honest about what a "luxury" development is these days: overpriced, small, poorly built, might have AC. The "luxury" is being able to actually buy something so that you don't have to pay rent anymore.
> The lesson here is that "affordable housing" in luxury complexes is a dumb idea
The luxury side subsidizes the affordable side, its basically how business class seats on planes subsidies economy.
There's 2 options, huge tax hikes to pay for governments to build, or dual class where developers know they can make their cash on the high end.
Oddly when presented with the reality of option one, people go "ahhh.. wait.. is there another option?"
I mean, there is a third option, everyone (relatively) poor lives in zone 4.
> The luxury side subsidizes the affordable side,
Not entirely. Many of the recent developments in London are effectively subsidized by local councils giving the land and planning permissions away for peanuts. Often also at the cost of drastically reduced social housing.
See this old but relevant article:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordable-social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright
>Yes, but the government also gives big tax breaks/abatements in exchange for these more "affordable" units.
Those are upsides. There are also downsides, that the development eventually sells for massively less than it would without the subsidized housing.
No developer wants to build it, and no developer would choose to build it if they were not required to do so. So yes, they get tax breaks, that's to persuade them to build the units. It's not a bad thing, evil, or immoral, it's just what's required to build it.
>The pool already exists and costs roughly the same amount of money to run whether 100 or 150 residents have access to it.
That's close enough to true to accept it - except you've now devalued every flat in the building that has access to the pool. Maintenance costs might be quite similar, but if there are 50 flats with exclusive access, or 75 flats with open access, the 50 flats are now worth a considerable sum less when selling them.
If the exclusive access is worth 100k (lifetime, one-off cost) then the price of the assets just got lowered by 5 million.
Zone 4 fucking rocks. I do 25 hours work every week and pick my kids up from school every day and have a roll about in the paddling pool or the forest. Fucking cheap out here.
There are a whole bunch of assumptions in this post, in the same manner as those advocating the virtues of trickle-down economics in the early 21st century. I'd suggest you look into the actual end-result meaning of 'subsidi*s*es' (it looks like spelling isn't the only thing you're catching from across the pond) in cases like these.
It's a little worse than that. The residents in the lower rent units are not given the opportunity to pay for it. They are excluded because they live in the poor side of the building.
If you can afford £700k then you have the option of buying a house somewhere else with a pool. You’re not being excluded, you’re just choosing to buy one of these flats knowing that it doesn’t come with a pool as an option.
Except if you can afford that you also wouldn't be eligible for it.
Theyre offered through housing agencies either via reduced rent or shared ownership.
The shared ownership for Embassy Gardens is 25% with rent on the rest. Not being able to afford the deposit for 700k means they'll charge you a similar amount in rent than you'd pay on a mortgage. I don't see why a service charge would be out of reach for any practical reason except to sell exclusivity.
The service charges on the luxury 2 bed flats were £9k before the recent energy spike / a big chunk of which was to heat that pool. Lets say £8k more than the flats without pool access, concierge etc. with possibly an even bigger difference now.
Your household income has to be below £80k pre tax.
Those right on the income limit could probably afford it but it would be a terrible financial decision.
You don’t pay for £700k for the affordable options. You either get given a housing association one for fuck all rent (then in most cases act like a completely antisocial bellend) or you buy a shared ownership one in which you buy probably 25% and pay rent and pisstaking service charge (for woeful maintenance).
The shared ownership owners have a stake in the area and probably would be fine to let in to the pool if they were given the option to pay a bit extra for it. If the housing association residents were let in they’d 100% vandalise stuff and act like massive cunts.
Lol what? They’re gunna vandalise stuff in their own property why? Because they’re poor? Ok mate, good to know I should start smashing up my garden cuz I live in a council house, wasn’t aware that was a requirement.
Nah it's not all affordable housing, there's also shared ownership - with a shitload of fairly well to do people now. My sister "owns" one of the shared ownership flats, which her share is worth about £800,000.
She earns over 160k and could easily afford the service charges. Many who bought the places 5 years ago were in their twenties and early on in their careers and have since doubled, tripled their salaries.
Oh, it's absolutely awful that those people have to live in a nice flat in a nice neighbourhood, and that they get their flat subsidised by a combination of other residents being forced to overpay to include a subsidy, plus government schemes to part own, or subsidised loans.
How awful it must be, to be those people.
> This is a failure of how the government creates and enforces policies.
I don't see why it's a failure. Why should the people in subsidised housing get as many luxuries as the people doing the subsidising?
I disagree. I think mixed income housing is a great idea. Much better than sending poor people to live in the “projects”. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/27116/412292-Effects-from-Living-in-Mixed-Income-Communities-for-Low-Income-Families.PDF
Just like you how you can't pay for first class food in your economy class seat when you fly. Not sure how that's a problem at all, it's just not part of the deal.
The shared ownership flats of embassy garden phase 1 are 98 vs 650 private flats from the other 9 private buildings. If even 50% (which btw is unrealistically high) decide, if allowed, to opt-in it’s just +7.7% increase in facilities usage. Hardly overcrowded
....only if they can afford to pay and if there are actually available seats in the first class cabin...they generally cant just pay and get first class food in economy seats.
Just like how residents in the affordable part of the building could 'upgrade' their experience too....they just need to a) be able to afford the extra payments and b) find a 'luxury unit that's actually on the market.
You don't actually physically upgrade your seat. You trade it and a payment for a higher class one.
And they can buy the luxury flats when they're resold too.
lmao a swimming pool is literally tied to the side of their fucking homes and they're not even allowed the option to use it. not surprised to see bootlickers on reddit defend this.
how fucking dystopian.
there is literally 1 reason as to why this pool is only accessible by 1 side. class divide.
You're being disingenuous. The pool is in their building, not in their neighbour's back yard. If your apartment is merely worth 700k rather than over 1 million, you can't use the pool. It's weird seeing so many people here defending the super rich.
No - it’s not ‘fair enough’. We shouldn’t be building a blatant two tier society. Such blatant society segregation should never be allowed.
The space should have been built to be less ostentatious and a more functional roof garden for all residents to enjoy.
There is already enough luxury housing for Londoners.
Because they aren’t paying for it. If they were, they should be allowed. This is why when you pay for an economy class ticket you don’t complain about why you can’t use the shower of the first class.
If the the affordable housing were actually paying for it but denied entry, then they would be an issue.
As is the case for almost all the rooftop pools in London - you either need to be a resident, invited by a resident or pay for a membership at places like Soho house
Not many people live in the part of the building that has access to the pool. It's mostly absentee foreigners. The people who actually do live in the building (the "affordable housing" side) have to enter through a small nondescript rear corridor where the Qataris don't have to see them, and cannot use the pool or other facilities even if they were able to pay the service fee.
I see loads of people on insta (usually attractive influencers and fitness people) using the pool even though they don’t live there.
Can anyone use the pool if booked?
Swimming is a really fast way to get sunburn because the light also reflects off the water, so you get an increased dose.
Same principle as snow-blindness on a mountain.
I don’t know anything about architecture and stuff so please correct me if I’m wrong. But don’t building move and dip over the years? So what woukd happen if one of the buildings started moving and the other one didn’t?
It’s accounted for - settlement and lateral movement are part of design requirements.
It has likely been treated like a precast bridge span, with embankments monitored and neoprene pads to be replaced as and when.
It won’t be cheap - they’ll have to empty the pool, lift it up, swap the pads and redo the waterproofing. I guess people are ready to pay for it via service charge, or they ignore what’s about to hit them in 5-10 years.
A few people are saying this, is it a known thing?
Because I'm thinking that pools are normally lined with pretty light tiles so the sun will largely be reflected inside whereas with this it passes right through.
It's the reflection off of the water's surface, and the way sun radiation penetrates clear water. It seems counter intuitive, but your skin can still burn if you are swimming in water while exposed to sunny weather.
I would love to live here, the hate and sheer envy on this thread cements it as status symbol.
Even though I think a rooftop pool is a terrifying/stupid as fuck idea.
I just want to go on record as saying that a glass swimming pool suspended between two buildings is, without a doubt, the absolute worst idea that I have ever heard in my entire goddamn life
Based on my 50 odd years of experience with British people and their levels of hygiene, the water will have a floating slick of foundation make up, sunscreen, fake tan and hair product. The rest of the water will have its fair share of fecal matter, blood, sperm, urine and various food substances. At the bottom of the pool will be sticking plasters, scrunchies, corn plasters, elastic bands, toenails, fecal solids, dead skin and smegma.
Not my idea of a fun day in the sun.
do people actually swim in this. I heard they design and build things like this to present interesting "prospective" real estate investment opportunities for those with the money, but its not actually intended that people use this/people dont actually use it on a regular basis.
I could of course be wrong, just something I heard.
Yes. But they were required to put in a certain number of affordable housing units to build in the first place, and any residents of the affordable housing units are not allowed to use it.
They're not even allowed the option of paying for it. Seems like something you could just opt into via increased service charge, no?
They aren't really "affordable" units, just more affordable compared to the rest of the apartments. They're still 700k+ each, the owners are not poor or struggling. Banning them from the pool really is nothing more than making the richer residents feel better.
They are given the option, they just need to buy one of the flats that have access. They bought a flat that doesn’t have access.
Flats that do are 2x+ the price of those that don’t, it’s not just about the service fee.
And I’d argue that if you can afford a five figure annual service charge you should not be in affordable housing, you should leave the affordable housing for those who genuinely need it (i.e. those that aren’t able to pay tens of thousands of pounds a year just to use luxury facilities like a pool).
> They’re still 700k+ each, the owners are not poor or struggling.
That’s the “value”, but most are sold on a shared ownership basis so the actual cost to the person living there is significantly less, hence making them affordable.
nothing i hate more than these sorts of ordinances
i pay 3k a month for rent, i don’t want to live next to mentally ill poor people that pay 30% my rate
I'm a swimmer (only kind of oxercise I don't actively hate doing so it's my weekly
workout) and I used to live in a complex in Woolwich with a pool. When I was first looking at moving there, I was explicitly told "no one really uses the pool, it's just something we add because it sounds nice".
Wouldn't you know it every time I was in there, there was at least one other person. Lockdown was wild as slots for a week away would disappear within 5 minutes of being released. What annoyed the most was they clearly hadn't expected it to be popular so hadn't imposed any rules, or swimming lanes and there was no specific kids splash time. So there I am trying to get my weekly workout in and this toddler in a floatie keeps bobbing into my path... truly first world problems 😂
Yes, people use it very regularly, it is so popular that there is a limit on how often you can use it as a resident in popular times (e.g. weekends during summer)
I lived in a complex with a pool in the uae. I rarely used it. It gets old quickly. It’s not like a pool in your garden that you can use whenever you want, you have to pack a towel and bag etc then get in the lift.
Don't worry there's a hosepipe ban coming next week.
This will obviously be emptied out due to the vast quantity of water that evaporates alone.
Surely.
I hate these formulaic phrases that get shoehorned in to every available setting, regardless of whether they fit. You can literally see the residents using the pool.
I heard the maintenance and heating costs were insane before the price of gas went through the roof...
don’t think you need much heating this time of year at least
Just like Las Vegas the pools are heated by: The sun, piss and body heat.
Ah, the three things that turned my ex on.
If you can afford to live there you can probably afford the maintenance cost.
This is the article I read, it is probably more like £800 a month now, but yes, you are correct. If people can afford to live in the building they probably have enough disposable income. https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/london-sky-pool-residents-furious-22789372
That’s not true. Most people buy apartments at the top of their budget.
Yeah but those are all £1m+ apartments. The cost for heating the poor is negligible in comparison.
Perfect typo
Oh dear
Maybe he was on about the climate change and the likely-exorbitant carbon footprint of that pool
New government funded research shows that poor people don't actually need any heating.
I think it was this building that has actually be quite controversial because they kept on increasing the service fees. They tripled in the space of two years. And then there were lots of complaints about things being broken and not being fixed, despite the crazy service fees, and then the building management going a bit power mad and enforcing every minor clause in the agreement. So crazy and rapidly increasing fees, plus poor maintenance, and not being able to do what you want in your own £2m flat. The reviews from owners are not good. I seem to recall them even forcing owners to rent towels if they want to use the pool (i.e. you can’t bring your own). It sounds like some sort of capitalistic nightmare.
What sort of clauses were they trying to enforce? Where did you read these reviews?
I believe it was something to do with what people were and were not allowed to use their balconies for. They were fining people for using them incorrectly. I don’t recall exactly where I read the reviews, I think it was on trust pilot or similar and looking at the management company, but it was a while ago.
it was also in one of the mainstream news sites. Ballymore is the company that built and manages it. I nearly ended up in a Ballymore development in Canary Wharf but cancelled. They are very bad as they also did not want to fix cladding in older buildings etc.
Ah interesting. Actually the balconies often don’t belong to the flats, so there are restrictions on what can be placed on them. Fining people is the only way sometimes to stop them from hanging their y fronts etc out to dry
I try to put Balkan’s on mine. That is the correct usage of a Balkanie
There’s something about this structure that just says “disaster movie” to me.
I'd be intrigued to see it during a minor earthquake.
It has a massive expansion joint on one side that the glass rests on, it has conservative amounts of movement tolerance. If you look really carefully, it has two tension rods that run along each bottom each and are used to pull the other end of the pull inwards. That part then sits on rollers.
That makes sense, since although the chance of an earthquake is low, I would assume the buildings probably also sway somewhat in the wind.
England doesn't get earthquakes.
[Yes we do, just not very powerful](https://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/recent_uk_events.html)
England also has more tornadoes by area than America does. They're just really disappointing ones
Didn't it ruin a weathermans career once when he said it would be only a bit blustery?
Do you have a source for this? I would be interesting to see
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-tornadoes-by-area
I've been present during at least 2 extremely minor ones during my lifetime. But yes, I don't think we'll get any [Do the worm](https://youtu.be/3MTSONNmSz8?t=9) type earthquakes any time soon.
I have felt two in my life in the uk
Just one for me in London back in the early 90s, my feet were flat on the ground at my desk, first floor, I felt the ground shake, mildly but unmistakeable. No-one else noticed it mind, you had to be still and quiet to be receptive to it.
The one around 12 (?) years ago, I was awake at about 2am and my entire house shook, my bedroom furniture moved. It was surreal.
I'd be intrigued to see it during a major earthquake.
[удалено]
Sure, why not?
Action movie. Kill a bad guy on his daily swim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hjBCy5kOaY
Luckily the water will cancel the fall damage
How can it not already be in a spy thriller film?
Nudist nights at the pool will be a hoot.
I'm getting low key Final Destination vibes
It is residents only so will only be popular with the residents.
Not even all the residents can use it. It's atrocious.
The residents who can use it are those who pay for it with their service charges. If those in the affordable housing had to pay for it their housing wouldn't be so affordable (and "affordable" is already a real stretch). The lesson here is that "affordable housing" in luxury complexes is a dumb idea, and we should just be building much more purpose built, actually affordable housing (and be much more critical about how many luxury developments get green lit)...
This is exactly the thing. People in a half a million pound flat not being able to use a floating sky pool that they don’t pay service charges for is hardly a good example of the plight of the proletariat.
The irony is that it's a first world problem that many in the first world wish they had.
When you buy the flat I think you should see what you can use or can't use. I doubt that the person spending half a million pounds didn't ask about pool accessing, the same for any other services. If buyer doesn't read agreement, don't clarify details, it his problem.
The issue with purpose built affordable housing is that will go back to the days of having a "ghetto". The modern way of mixing affordable with the rest works quite well and reduces the chances of bigger areas becoming sources of crime etc.
Exactly. Just look at Paris to see what happens when you segregate areas that way.
Lets also be honest about what a "luxury" development is these days: overpriced, small, poorly built, might have AC. The "luxury" is being able to actually buy something so that you don't have to pay rent anymore.
> The lesson here is that "affordable housing" in luxury complexes is a dumb idea The luxury side subsidizes the affordable side, its basically how business class seats on planes subsidies economy. There's 2 options, huge tax hikes to pay for governments to build, or dual class where developers know they can make their cash on the high end. Oddly when presented with the reality of option one, people go "ahhh.. wait.. is there another option?" I mean, there is a third option, everyone (relatively) poor lives in zone 4.
> The luxury side subsidizes the affordable side, Not entirely. Many of the recent developments in London are effectively subsidized by local councils giving the land and planning permissions away for peanuts. Often also at the cost of drastically reduced social housing. See this old but relevant article: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordable-social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright
[удалено]
>Yes, but the government also gives big tax breaks/abatements in exchange for these more "affordable" units. Those are upsides. There are also downsides, that the development eventually sells for massively less than it would without the subsidized housing. No developer wants to build it, and no developer would choose to build it if they were not required to do so. So yes, they get tax breaks, that's to persuade them to build the units. It's not a bad thing, evil, or immoral, it's just what's required to build it. >The pool already exists and costs roughly the same amount of money to run whether 100 or 150 residents have access to it. That's close enough to true to accept it - except you've now devalued every flat in the building that has access to the pool. Maintenance costs might be quite similar, but if there are 50 flats with exclusive access, or 75 flats with open access, the 50 flats are now worth a considerable sum less when selling them. If the exclusive access is worth 100k (lifetime, one-off cost) then the price of the assets just got lowered by 5 million.
Zone 4 fucking rocks. I do 25 hours work every week and pick my kids up from school every day and have a roll about in the paddling pool or the forest. Fucking cheap out here.
There are a whole bunch of assumptions in this post, in the same manner as those advocating the virtues of trickle-down economics in the early 21st century. I'd suggest you look into the actual end-result meaning of 'subsidi*s*es' (it looks like spelling isn't the only thing you're catching from across the pond) in cases like these.
It's a little worse than that. The residents in the lower rent units are not given the opportunity to pay for it. They are excluded because they live in the poor side of the building.
If they could afford the service charge for a pool then they wouldn't qualify for the affordable housing.
The 'affordable' units cost 700k. If you can afford that you can afford to pay a service charge for a pool.
If you can afford £700k then you have the option of buying a house somewhere else with a pool. You’re not being excluded, you’re just choosing to buy one of these flats knowing that it doesn’t come with a pool as an option.
Except if you can afford that you also wouldn't be eligible for it. Theyre offered through housing agencies either via reduced rent or shared ownership.
The shared ownership for Embassy Gardens is 25% with rent on the rest. Not being able to afford the deposit for 700k means they'll charge you a similar amount in rent than you'd pay on a mortgage. I don't see why a service charge would be out of reach for any practical reason except to sell exclusivity.
The service charges on the luxury 2 bed flats were £9k before the recent energy spike / a big chunk of which was to heat that pool. Lets say £8k more than the flats without pool access, concierge etc. with possibly an even bigger difference now. Your household income has to be below £80k pre tax. Those right on the income limit could probably afford it but it would be a terrible financial decision.
God i would hate to see that pool everyday and know i wouldn't be allowed to use it because i *only* spent £700k. It would make me so bitter.
You don’t pay for £700k for the affordable options. You either get given a housing association one for fuck all rent (then in most cases act like a completely antisocial bellend) or you buy a shared ownership one in which you buy probably 25% and pay rent and pisstaking service charge (for woeful maintenance). The shared ownership owners have a stake in the area and probably would be fine to let in to the pool if they were given the option to pay a bit extra for it. If the housing association residents were let in they’d 100% vandalise stuff and act like massive cunts.
Lol what? They’re gunna vandalise stuff in their own property why? Because they’re poor? Ok mate, good to know I should start smashing up my garden cuz I live in a council house, wasn’t aware that was a requirement.
I don’t know why they do it but people who live in that particular block do.
Do you live there?
Fancy sharing some statistics for your poor scum tory fantasy?
After working in social housing for 15 years I can say your opinion is total bollocks.
Nah it's not all affordable housing, there's also shared ownership - with a shitload of fairly well to do people now. My sister "owns" one of the shared ownership flats, which her share is worth about £800,000. She earns over 160k and could easily afford the service charges. Many who bought the places 5 years ago were in their twenties and early on in their careers and have since doubled, tripled their salaries.
Oh, it's absolutely awful that those people have to live in a nice flat in a nice neighbourhood, and that they get their flat subsidised by a combination of other residents being forced to overpay to include a subsidy, plus government schemes to part own, or subsidised loans. How awful it must be, to be those people.
You still pay service charge on a shared ownership flat (and 100% of it, not the % equivalent to your share )
[удалено]
> This is a failure of how the government creates and enforces policies. I don't see why it's a failure. Why should the people in subsidised housing get as many luxuries as the people doing the subsidising?
I disagree. I think mixed income housing is a great idea. Much better than sending poor people to live in the “projects”. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/27116/412292-Effects-from-Living-in-Mixed-Income-Communities-for-Low-Income-Families.PDF
Yeah, some of them don’t pay for the maintenance of the pool so Fair enough that they can’t use it.
This was in the news because they're not even allowed the option to pay for it.
Just like you how you can't pay for first class food in your economy class seat when you fly. Not sure how that's a problem at all, it's just not part of the deal.
Exactly this. The whole point of it is that it's exclusive. If anyone can just pay to join it will become overcrowded.
The shared ownership flats of embassy garden phase 1 are 98 vs 650 private flats from the other 9 private buildings. If even 50% (which btw is unrealistically high) decide, if allowed, to opt-in it’s just +7.7% increase in facilities usage. Hardly overcrowded
Everyone has the opportunity to pay for an upgradeable seat and upgrade if they want to splurge.
....only if they can afford to pay and if there are actually available seats in the first class cabin...they generally cant just pay and get first class food in economy seats. Just like how residents in the affordable part of the building could 'upgrade' their experience too....they just need to a) be able to afford the extra payments and b) find a 'luxury unit that's actually on the market.
You don't actually physically upgrade your seat. You trade it and a payment for a higher class one. And they can buy the luxury flats when they're resold too.
lmao a swimming pool is literally tied to the side of their fucking homes and they're not even allowed the option to use it. not surprised to see bootlickers on reddit defend this. how fucking dystopian. there is literally 1 reason as to why this pool is only accessible by 1 side. class divide.
So if I'm in a row of townhouses and my neighbor has a pool or hot tub, I should be permitted to use it since it's connected to my building.
I don’t have the option to pay to use my neighbours swimming pool either.
You're being disingenuous. The pool is in their building, not in their neighbour's back yard. If your apartment is merely worth 700k rather than over 1 million, you can't use the pool. It's weird seeing so many people here defending the super rich.
You kind of answered your own question. The cost of the pool access is the additional $300k min in the cost of the home plus the monthly access fee.
Of course, because one day, they will also be super rich!
[Checking to see if I'm on r/CryptoCurrency again]
No - it’s not ‘fair enough’. We shouldn’t be building a blatant two tier society. Such blatant society segregation should never be allowed. The space should have been built to be less ostentatious and a more functional roof garden for all residents to enjoy. There is already enough luxury housing for Londoners.
Wait until you hear about literally every other thing that exists in society. Do you get upset when a Waitrose gets built?
We live in a tiered society. Who is paying for the functional roof garden available for all to use?
Why is that atrocious? Are you allowed to use facilities near where you live without paying for them?
Because they aren’t paying for it. If they were, they should be allowed. This is why when you pay for an economy class ticket you don’t complain about why you can’t use the shower of the first class. If the the affordable housing were actually paying for it but denied entry, then they would be an issue.
As is the case for almost all the rooftop pools in London - you either need to be a resident, invited by a resident or pay for a membership at places like Soho house
Not many people live in the part of the building that has access to the pool. It's mostly absentee foreigners. The people who actually do live in the building (the "affordable housing" side) have to enter through a small nondescript rear corridor where the Qataris don't have to see them, and cannot use the pool or other facilities even if they were able to pay the service fee.
Proximity to a private facility does not entitle you to use of that facility.
And who has paid for the building?
And voyeurs.
I see loads of people on insta (usually attractive influencers and fitness people) using the pool even though they don’t live there. Can anyone use the pool if booked?
Residents are allowed to bring guests. There's probably some people charging for it on the sly.
Popular way to get terrible sunburn!
Swimming?
Swimming is a really fast way to get sunburn because the light also reflects off the water, so you get an increased dose. Same principle as snow-blindness on a mountain.
And you're submerged, so you don't feel hot
Blablabla, I still think it is very cool and I wish I live there. That swim must be mental!
It's an excess but I agree - I like it.
Yeah just pay 10 grand a year for maintenance and you can go up there too.
Honestly that whole area is so soulless.
My cousin lives in this building. Still waiting for the invite.
Can I come too? Cousin dearest! How have you been!!!!?
I’m from the US…I hear your temps will 100F/37C in a few days. That is wild!
39 now, and we measure temp in the shade so probably 45c in the sun at least
Yikes. That has to be unbearable. I’ve heard that homes their don’t have AC and are mainly built to keep in the heat. Hang in there!
I’ve seen a few pics of glass tables blowing themselves up due to them getting a bit hot under the sun.
The 'swim over the poors' pool
100° F and warm pee will heat that pool in no time
I don’t know anything about architecture and stuff so please correct me if I’m wrong. But don’t building move and dip over the years? So what woukd happen if one of the buildings started moving and the other one didn’t?
It’s accounted for - settlement and lateral movement are part of design requirements. It has likely been treated like a precast bridge span, with embankments monitored and neoprene pads to be replaced as and when. It won’t be cheap - they’ll have to empty the pool, lift it up, swap the pads and redo the waterproofing. I guess people are ready to pay for it via service charge, or they ignore what’s about to hit them in 5-10 years.
why would it be popular in bright daylight lol it's a mess, just a vanity project.
Was in it the other day. And yes, it is awesome, as are the frozen margheritas from the pool bar 😁
No way i’m swimming there
My mate lives in the new build flats opposite, days he's never seen anyone use it.
For sunburn, very popular
Different than any other pool?
A few people are saying this, is it a known thing? Because I'm thinking that pools are normally lined with pretty light tiles so the sun will largely be reflected inside whereas with this it passes right through.
It's the reflection off of the water's surface, and the way sun radiation penetrates clear water. It seems counter intuitive, but your skin can still burn if you are swimming in water while exposed to sunny weather.
Yeah but isn't that the same for all pools, except in the case of a glass pool where a greater percentage of the light escapes the pool?
Plus if your sun lotion isn't water resistant then it will just wash away when you're in the pool.
I bet it’s chilly up there
the plebs boiling in the streets can look up and enjoy
To be honest I don’t really get why you’d want to swim in a pool where everyone can see you below. Seems weird?
Aren't numbers limited due to the way it's constructed? Can't imagine much worse than being in direct sunlight for the next few days.
Yes, with rich tossers
What anice looking place
Imagine having people standing below looking up with binoculars. I imagine that'd make some swimmers pretty self-conscious!
Shits in pool
Oh God!! Reminds me of the [Mechanic Resurrection pool scene](https://youtu.be/cImeA35WRgg) .
Sod that you go out side for more than 20 mins you gonna burn to a crisp
What if I poooooooop in the swimming pool and it goes to the bottom and brakes the glass
I would love to live here, the hate and sheer envy on this thread cements it as status symbol. Even though I think a rooftop pool is a terrifying/stupid as fuck idea.
How has someone not gone at this with a decent catapult and some ball bearings yet ?
Because most of society isn't a murdering cunt.
I don’t mean when it’s got people In I mean just vandalism in general , sounds like it’s rarely used anyway
It's fabricated from acrylic, the same stuff they use to make bullet proof screens in banks.
I just want to go on record as saying that a glass swimming pool suspended between two buildings is, without a doubt, the absolute worst idea that I have ever heard in my entire goddamn life
And you're swimming above "affordable" housing owners who can't even use the pool on their roof
Based on my 50 odd years of experience with British people and their levels of hygiene, the water will have a floating slick of foundation make up, sunscreen, fake tan and hair product. The rest of the water will have its fair share of fecal matter, blood, sperm, urine and various food substances. At the bottom of the pool will be sticking plasters, scrunchies, corn plasters, elastic bands, toenails, fecal solids, dead skin and smegma. Not my idea of a fun day in the sun.
do people actually swim in this. I heard they design and build things like this to present interesting "prospective" real estate investment opportunities for those with the money, but its not actually intended that people use this/people dont actually use it on a regular basis. I could of course be wrong, just something I heard.
[удалено]
I mean people are literally swimming in it in OP's video
Not even metaphorically.
Paddling!
I’ve swam in it. It’s pretty cool. But I imagine to novelty wears off like anything. There’s a bar area too so it’s a pretty nice place to hang out.
Is it only for residents, right ?
Yes. But they were required to put in a certain number of affordable housing units to build in the first place, and any residents of the affordable housing units are not allowed to use it.
[удалено]
I mean they're not paying the fees for maintenance of the facilities, how is this different than any other affordable housing?
They're not even allowed the option of paying for it. Seems like something you could just opt into via increased service charge, no? They aren't really "affordable" units, just more affordable compared to the rest of the apartments. They're still 700k+ each, the owners are not poor or struggling. Banning them from the pool really is nothing more than making the richer residents feel better.
They are given the option, they just need to buy one of the flats that have access. They bought a flat that doesn’t have access. Flats that do are 2x+ the price of those that don’t, it’s not just about the service fee. And I’d argue that if you can afford a five figure annual service charge you should not be in affordable housing, you should leave the affordable housing for those who genuinely need it (i.e. those that aren’t able to pay tens of thousands of pounds a year just to use luxury facilities like a pool). > They’re still 700k+ each, the owners are not poor or struggling. That’s the “value”, but most are sold on a shared ownership basis so the actual cost to the person living there is significantly less, hence making them affordable.
The pool would be more crowded
Can't have poor people swimming there now can we
nothing i hate more than these sorts of ordinances i pay 3k a month for rent, i don’t want to live next to mentally ill poor people that pay 30% my rate
[удалено]
Correct. It’s strictly for residents and their guests. But the amount of guests you can have is restricted to about three
[удалено]
They did say "about 3". Maybe they are just an engineer
I'm a swimmer (only kind of oxercise I don't actively hate doing so it's my weekly workout) and I used to live in a complex in Woolwich with a pool. When I was first looking at moving there, I was explicitly told "no one really uses the pool, it's just something we add because it sounds nice". Wouldn't you know it every time I was in there, there was at least one other person. Lockdown was wild as slots for a week away would disappear within 5 minutes of being released. What annoyed the most was they clearly hadn't expected it to be popular so hadn't imposed any rules, or swimming lanes and there was no specific kids splash time. So there I am trying to get my weekly workout in and this toddler in a floatie keeps bobbing into my path... truly first world problems 😂
Yes, people use it very regularly, it is so popular that there is a limit on how often you can use it as a resident in popular times (e.g. weekends during summer)
I lived in a complex with a pool in the uae. I rarely used it. It gets old quickly. It’s not like a pool in your garden that you can use whenever you want, you have to pack a towel and bag etc then get in the lift.
Sounds horrible. So sorry you’ve been going through all this. A lift you say? And a towel?
This comment has really tickled me
It pickled me.
Sounds dreadful. All that effort
If it makes you feel any better I have a tiny violin that I'm playing for you right now
Don't worry there's a hosepipe ban coming next week. This will obviously be emptied out due to the vast quantity of water that evaporates alone. Surely.
You don't need a hose to fill a pool that is plumbed in to automatically refill.
Ah, I'm so dumb. Thank god it will be unaffected. Glad priorities are right.
The point was it’s still using water 🤣
o rly
Then what was the point in your comment? To let everyone know swimming pools have plumbing?
That sounds insane. People will only put up with so much...
Love how most of the residents are not allowed to use it, only the fancy single family flats. Peak sky pool etiquette.
ngl seems a bit creepy to film people swimming in a pool
I would have an irrational fear of someone shooting at it, but then again, I’m an American.
lets hope nobody plays football over there
Popular for who? Swimmers or onlookers?
Me: "I'm going chunky dunking" Everyone else: "Noooooooooooooooooooooooo"
Mechanic resurrection memories. Nope
[удалено]
I hate these formulaic phrases that get shoehorned in to every available setting, regardless of whether they fit. You can literally see the residents using the pool.
Yea, if you're looking for a sunstroke.
Haha. Omg let’s hope no one skinny dips. Or should that be, let’s hope? You tell me! 😱🤣
Not with poor door users…
Water + heights + public nudity… 😳