PDA

View Full Version : some nice old aerials



czsz
March 28th, 2006, 09:12 PM
I found these here:

http://recteck.com/aerial.html

http://recteck.com/cenparklake_800.jpg

http://recteck.com/hellgate_800.jpg

Eugenius
March 28th, 2006, 11:25 PM
That second photo is the reason no other city can even hope to come close to New York in skyscraper magnificence.

antinimby
March 29th, 2006, 01:20 AM
I hate to break it to ya, but quite a few have already gone past us with a few others gaining ground with each passing second.
Check 'em out here (http://www.diserio.com/top15-skylines.html).

ablarc
March 29th, 2006, 07:05 AM
NY needs more supertalls to stick up through the plateau.

Shadows are a red herring and density's actually desirable.

City Spire
March 29th, 2006, 08:55 AM
I hate to break it to ya, but quite a few have already gone past us with a few others gaining ground with each passing second.
Check 'em out here (http://www.diserio.com/top15-skylines.html).

How can anyone seriously say that Chicago and Shanghai have "better" skylines than New York? In my opinion theyīre not even close. Itīs not all about one or two extremely high skyscrapers, itīs about density, number and different kinds of architecture types too. And as it says on the page, New York has 47 buildings above 200 meters - Shanghai has 25 and Chicago has 19. The fact speaks for itself. And without knowing the actuall numbers, I really think that if we included 100 meter-buildings, New York would be even more superior. Really, the only city that plays in the same league is Hongkong.

Fabrizio
March 29th, 2006, 09:20 AM
Does any other skyline have so many internationally recognized buildings as does NYC? Not only recognizable, but buildings that are evocative of history and legend? The Chrysler, the ESB, Rockefeller Center.... and up until 2001 the WTC. Cīmon .... how many of these cities have buildings with sillouettes that mean something? Tall buildings are now all over the place ...but iconic buildings are few.

ablarc
March 29th, 2006, 09:40 AM
Tall buildings are now all over the place ...but iconic buildings are few.
Hong Kong, Chicago and Shanghai all have iconic buildings; it's partly a function of sheer height.

Saying Chicago has a better skyline is a qualitative rather than quantitative assessment. New York's skyline is too filled in and plateau-esque; it needs some pinnacles. It also has too many fat buildings.

Fabrizio
March 29th, 2006, 02:24 PM
I quess it depends on what you mean by "better".

If better means "higher", then NYC was beat a while ago.... and with the influx of big money and new building technologies, any third-world country can get some super-tall buildings going. And yes, parts of NYC´s skyline have been ruined with all of the squat boxes built since the 60´s. But still.... in my opinion, the NYC skyline outshines them all...

Icon: "An important and enduring symbol " "One who is the object of great attention and devotion".

Hollywood (and US television) communicates to the world and it has been doing so on a global scale since the 1920´s..... that´s why the buildings of NYC are so familiar to most on the planet... and have such a strong emotional pull: NYC has the Empire State building that King Kong climbed , Rockefeller Center that Gene Kelly danced at the top of, the Waldorf of Fred Astair and Ginger Rodgers, the Brooklyn Bridge on millions of posters, the Chrysler building, the WTC and the whole world watching them fall, CPW seen from Central Park in countless films ....etc, etc.... (and not to mention the smaller buldings ....from the Dakota where John Lennon was killed to the cross-roads building in Times Square). Sure Hong Kong has the Pei building.... probably the most photographed of Hong Kong.... but what´s it´s story? Does the Sears tower get hearts racing? Close your eyes and try to vision the skyline of Tokyo.... you can´t do it.... no one outside of Japan can.

Yes if you want tall... wait 15 minutes and a new one will be announced somewhere in Asia or the Middle East or where ever.... but they´ve got a loooong way to go create a skyline that is instantly recognizable to the rest of the world.

NYatKNIGHT
March 29th, 2006, 03:28 PM
The NY skyline of the 30's was more impressive than most of those on this top ten list, IMO. It's in constant change, and opinions vary, but it's hard to argue with the impressiveness of the NY skyline from its enormity alone. It is almost impossible to take it all in at once. Seen from various angles, the city can be seen as a completely different skyline with completely different buildings like no other city, the density prohibits it. So to compare the New York skyline to other cities is almost unfair - to the other cities. New York's got it all, and so much of it.

Yes, it could use a few more pinacles rising above the plateau, we're working on that.

ablarc
March 29th, 2006, 06:37 PM
The NY skyline of the 30's was more impressive than most of those on this top ten list, IMO.
Agreed. It was also more impressive than today's New York skyline. As Fabrizio points out and no one here seriously disputes, it's not just a question of height. New York's skyline is getting dumpy. And dumpier every time a fat fifty-story building is added to fill in another gap where there used to be sky in the skyline.

It used to be a collection of Fred Astaires and now it's a crowd of waddlers.

czsz
March 29th, 2006, 09:45 PM
It's a big, tasteless crowd of obese people. It's like the bleachers of a Nascar race.

lofter1
March 29th, 2006, 11:01 PM
lol ^

Fabrizio
March 30th, 2006, 08:48 AM
"And dumpier every time a fat fifty-story building is added to fill in another gap where there used to be sky in the skyline."

Ok, raise your hands if youīre for new zoning forcing set-backs and land-use laws requiring a certain number of feet between buildings ...and we might as well throw in some site-line protection laws as well.

It would certainly restore the skyline.

Any hands?

I got mine raised.

ablarc
March 30th, 2006, 09:10 AM
It would certainly restore the skyline.
Certainly? Only if the new crop of buildings were allowed to soar to eighty stories and above, so there'd be sky between the pinnacles again. Then I'd be for it.

Derek2k3
April 2nd, 2006, 12:30 AM
One of the best photos I've ever seen...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/automatt/117520617/in/photostream/

ablarc
April 2nd, 2006, 09:42 AM
A fine picture indeed. It raises the issue: is New York starting to resemble Sao Paulo? Forest of skyscrapers, none very tall. Less hierarchy, more uniformity. The final upshot in time may be a certain dullness. More is less?

City Spire
April 2nd, 2006, 01:14 PM
One of the best photos I've ever seen...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/automatt/117520617/in/photostream/

Great pic. Shame about the quality of it though.

And, ablarc, I would take density over a few really high buildings any day. Sure, if I could take some floors off of some buildings and edit to others, that would be great. But to me a big difference in height is not a better skyline than a lot of highrises. If a normal city wants to build high, and make it really noticable, they only have to build one 200 meters+ building. In New York you have to build at least 300 meters+ buildings to stand out. I guess we just have different opinions, but I just wanted to clarify that not everyone believe that "a fat fifty-story building" is necessarily a bad thing skyline-wise.

czsz
April 2nd, 2006, 03:13 PM
Indeed, at street level the wall of uniform height towers extending ad infinitum has a more powerful effect than one could ever hope to experience in cities with skylines more "impressive" when viewed from afar.

ablarc
April 2nd, 2006, 03:20 PM
Well, we're talking about skylines. You view those from afar.

czsz
April 2nd, 2006, 03:24 PM
How often, though? When you visit or live in New York, you rarely have occasion to go to Weehawken or a parking lot on the East River in Queens to gaze at Midtown from afar. I'd rather be concerned with how the city looks from a sidewalk on Third Avenue, or Central Park.

ablarc
April 2nd, 2006, 04:41 PM
^ Yeah, but it's not either/or.

TREPYE
July 23rd, 2006, 01:35 AM
I dont know why now exactly but this picture makes me miss the Twin Towers in a way that I never did before. I guess seeing them dominate the NYC skyline along with the Empire State hits a softspot. Tremendous shot but melancholy at the same time. What a F-ing shame. :(

http://recteck.com/hellgate_800.jpg