Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Say you owned entirely or owned a unit in and managed entirely a fancy ornate residential skyscraper on a plot of land that is large relative to the base of the skyscraper, and decided to lease/sell out all units there except for one of the penthouse units as you want that to be your primary residence. When you first bought the rectangular plot of land (that either had a dilapidated low-rise building or was already empty) in the city center, all 4 sides had ample open space surrounding it, with 3 directly opening into a public right-of-way (government-owned land intended to permanently be open to everyone in the general public).
The remaining one, which is a very long side, directly abuts the neighboring plot's garden, which the owner of the sole building there (which is mixed-use and low-rise) has decided decades ago to open to the general public to enjoy for free out of goodwill, even though they (people not on lease or purchase agreements) do not actually have the legal right to be there. The three sides that open up directly to the street public right-of-way have lackluster views from any height, while the side that faces the neighbor's garden has wonderful views of the water and/or mountains/hills once you clear the roof of the low-rise on the neighboring lot.
Since that metropolitan area has a relatively small population, is nowhere close to having a shortage of property, and the specific city center is relatively low-density (like main street in a typical historic town), you determine that it is almost impossible that the neighboring building will be expanded significantly. So, you decide to build a luxurious ornate high-rise residential building there. There are no height restrictions and setback requirements there. However, due to forseeable demand being only moderate, building significantly larger than forecasted would mean significant losses in revenue. Since you want to give all of the forecasted amount of residents the most comfortable and most enjoyable living experience, you decide to set back as far as possible from the street, especially from the one on the long side and place your building right up against the edge of the quiet neighboring garden on the property line shared between you and its owner. You decide to make that side the primary window side because of the views, so all of the upscale units are placed there.
One day, after you and all the other long-term residents have lived many years in and fully comfortably settled down in your respective units, the neighboring lot owner suddenly wants to redevelop his low-rise building that is in good condition. He did that after seeing the success of your building and wants the same success too. Despite the demand not increasing over the years, he still decides to make his new building the same size as yours. Since he also wants all of his residents to be as comfortable and enjoyable as possible, he also decides to set back as far as possible from all street right-of-ways. He also likes the city/town to have as beautiful and enjoyable as an architectural/town planning experience from the public outdoor areas as possible. So, he decides to make his building somewhat like a twin of yours in order to complement it, with very similar architectural styles. Your building is also unproportional from it being too long in relation to its width, so he would like to correct the problem.
He solves it by mating his building right up against yours during construction, making both of your buildings permanently bonded together (which is allowed there due to the lack of setback requirements), making the combination look somewhat like its a single building that is wider, and hence proportional. The residents in all of the upscale units in your building (one being yourself) each lose all windows (which made up 40% of all windows in the building before the windows were permanently sealed off) due to your units only having an exterior exposure on that side. That makes all of those units totally devoid of windows. You all suddenly went from having magnificent world-class top-quality views to total darkness in the absense of artificial light practically in the blink of an eye.
However, the developer of the new building next door, who also owns the penthouse unit (also right against the shared property line and at the same height as yours) that is his primary residence there, is extremely friendly and caring, as evidenced by him wanting to fix the unproportional architectural problem and have his residents as comforted and relaxed as possible. He did not build his building right against yours just because he was inconsiderate or because he wanted to block your windows. He was actually quite aware of the problem it would cause. He only did that because he thinks the greater good for the general public way outweighs the negative impacts to individuals (even if they're next-door neighbors, including the next-door landlord (you) specifically) in this case.
How would would you feel about your living situation, your next-door building's landlord, the neighbors in your building, etc. then? Also, since he is so friendly, he will allow you to make a permanent opening through you guys' set of adjoining lot-line walls in order to sort of combine your two separate units into one in order to give you top-convenient access to him at any time for in-person, face-to-face socialization and counseling as part of the way for him to show sympathy and empathy to you, and as a way for him to show sincere effort in trying to compensate for your losses. Would you be willing to cut an opening into the dividing walls in order to join/unite your units together? Would you then totally forgive him?
06-21-2022, 01:43 PM
4,640 posts, read 13,957,914 times
Reputation: 4052
There are rules, and laws the super, landlord, and other paid workers have to follow. That are in charge of operating the rental or owned property. To really block out the windows right from health pros of fresh air to the client or average occupier is already at high enough risk of a Lawsuit! Right from the tenants involved. Whether moving in before, during, or after the action of messing with the Windows in place. Please allow open air access to the windows for the ones really responsible. Also, the neighboring lot owner might face a similar situation of legal trouble. Having to fully respect the independent autonomy among high quality of life standards right for next door citizens. Especially self righteous fiery society representatives are going to prove justifiable inteference in a strong lawsuit against the next door respondants if didn't offer enough space among the entire surrounding living residential grounds.
Say you owned entirely or owned a unit in and managed entirely a fancy ornate residential skyscraper on a plot of land that is large relative to the base of the skyscraper, and decided to lease/sell out all units there except for one of the penthouse units as you want that to be your primary residence. When you first bought the rectangular plot of land (that either had a dilapidated low-rise building or was already empty) in the city center, all 4 sides had ample open space surrounding it, with 3 directly opening into a public right-of-way (government-owned land intended to permanently be open to everyone in the general public).
The remaining one, which is a very long side, directly abuts the neighboring plot's garden, which the owner of the sole building there (which is mixed-use and low-rise) has decided decades ago to open to the general public to enjoy for free out of goodwill, even though they (people not on lease or purchase agreements) do not actually have the legal right to be there. The three sides that open up directly to the street public right-of-way have lackluster views from any height, while the side that faces the neighbor's garden has wonderful views of the water and/or mountains/hills once you clear the roof of the low-rise on the neighboring lot.
Since that metropolitan area has a relatively small population, is nowhere close to having a shortage of property, and the specific city center is relatively low-density (like main street in a typical historic town), you determine that it is almost impossible that the neighboring building will be expanded significantly. So, you decide to build a luxurious ornate high-rise residential building there. There are no height restrictions and setback requirements there. However, due to forseeable demand being only moderate, building significantly larger than forecasted would mean significant losses in revenue. Since you want to give all of the forecasted amount of residents the most comfortable and most enjoyable living experience, you decide to set back as far as possible from the street, especially from the one on the long side and place your building right up against the edge of the quiet neighboring garden on the property line shared between you and its owner. You decide to make that side the primary window side because of the views, so all of the upscale units are placed there.
One day, after you and all the other long-term residents have lived many years in and fully comfortably settled down in your respective units, the neighboring lot owner suddenly wants to redevelop his low-rise building that is in good condition. He did that after seeing the success of your building and wants the same success too. Despite the demand not increasing over the years, he still decides to make his new building the same size as yours. Since he also wants all of his residents to be as comfortable and enjoyable as possible, he also decides to set back as far as possible from all street right-of-ways. He also likes the city/town to have as beautiful and enjoyable as an architectural/town planning experience from the public outdoor areas as possible. So, he decides to make his building somewhat like a twin of yours in order to complement it, with very similar architectural styles. Your building is also unproportional from it being too long in relation to its width, so he would like to correct the problem.
He solves it by mating his building right up against yours during construction, making both of your buildings permanently bonded together (which is allowed there due to the lack of setback requirements), making the combination look somewhat like its a single building that is wider, and hence proportional. The residents in all of the upscale units in your building (one being yourself) each lose all windows (which made up 40% of all windows in the building before the windows were permanently sealed off) due to your units only having an exterior exposure on that side. That makes all of those units totally devoid of windows. You all suddenly went from having magnificent world-class top-quality views to total darkness in the absense of artificial light practically in the blink of an eye.
However, the developer of the new building next door, who also owns the penthouse unit (also right against the shared property line and at the same height as yours) that is his primary residence there, is extremely friendly and caring, as evidenced by him wanting to fix the unproportional architectural problem and have his residents as comforted and relaxed as possible. He did not build his building right against yours just because he was inconsiderate or because he wanted to block your windows. He was actually quite aware of the problem it would cause. He only did that because he thinks the greater good for the general public way outweighs the negative impacts to individuals (even if they're next-door neighbors, including the next-door landlord (you) specifically) in this case.
How would would you feel about your living situation, your next-door building's landlord, the neighbors in your building, etc. then? Also, since he is so friendly, he will allow you to make a permanent opening through you guys' set of adjoining lot-line walls in order to sort of combine your two separate units into one in order to give you top-convenient access to him at any time for in-person, face-to-face socialization and counseling as part of the way for him to show sympathy and empathy to you, and as a way for him to show sincere effort in trying to compensate for your losses. Would you be willing to cut an opening into the dividing walls in order to join/unite your units together? Would you then totally forgive him?
Started to read through all this but got lost in all the qualifiers and extenuating circumstances and decided it was TLDR.
I do know if I found I no longer enjoyed my residence because of legal changes some neighbor made to their property the ball is sort of in my court...it is up to me to either accept the changes or move somewhere else.
Last edited by Parnassia; 06-21-2022 at 01:54 PM..
But that is only about windows on three out of the four total sides blocked. This is about all windows blocked, and skylights (in the tradition sense, which excludes compact solar tubes which can go right through the corner of a room for all rooms in a stacks) can't be opened because someone is living immediately above you.
If it was all legal it is just too bad if the residents don't like it.
I don’t think it would be legal, at least anywhere in the US. Even absent setback and height restrictions, other codes require living spaces to have windows allowing for egress to the outdoors to be counted as official living space. My neighborhood has pretty minimal setback requirements (only in the front) and no HOA, but I think any construction in excess of 600 feet has to get approval from a set amount of neighbors. Larger buildings typically have public hearings and go through significant modifications before plans get approved.
I don’t think it would be legal, at least anywhere in the US. Even absent setback and height restrictions, other codes require living spaces to have windows allowing for egress to the outdoors to be counted as official living space. My neighborhood has pretty minimal setback requirements (only in the front) and no HOA, but I think any construction in excess of 600 feet has to get approval from a set amount of neighbors. Larger buildings typically have public hearings and go through significant modifications before plans get approved.
This hypothetical case is located in a hypothetical country, so it doesn't apply.
__________________
My posts as a Moderator will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS And check this out: FAQ
Moderator of Canada (and sub-fora), Illinois (and sub-fora), Indiana (and sub-fora), Caregiving, Community Chat, Fashion & Beauty, Hair Care, Games/Trivia, History, Nature, Non-romantic Relationships, Psychology, Travel, Work & Employment, Writing.
___________________________
~ Life's a gift. Don't waste it. ~
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
