Reply With Quoteso will each car of the ferris wheel resemble a giant pepsi can?
Originally Posted by JCMAN320
That's very true. I didn't even look at it that way, so thus, I feel better about it lol
so will each car of the ferris wheel resemble a giant pepsi can?
Lol good question
The only thing is, if I wanted a "times square" kind of feeling, I would, I don't know, GO TO TIMES SQUARE!.
As long as they do not putthe Pepsi Name on it, next to the formerly Contenental AIRLINES and now Izod Arena, it will be tolerable. But from the pepsi circle, to the nike swoosh, to the Coke swish, to the target bullseye, etc etc etc, it gets to be a little much.
I am just tired of being subliminally programmed.
Man I am getting thirsty!
If done well with a company name attached it could be following in the footsteps of some big winners ...
What about the WOOLWORTH Building?
And ROCKEFELLER Center?
And TIMES Square?
And DISNEY Land?
Plus GHIRADELLI Square, and on and on ...
1. I do not see logos on those buildings in much the same way as this.
Woolworth does not have washing machines attached to it, Rockerfeller looks liek a building (where are his logo's?), and Times Square does not have the NYT logo all over it. Maybe it is hidden undfer all the other logos.
2. The key to naming is just that, names. We have always named things after people. So Ghiradelli sounds more like an Italian name to me than a chocolate square.
IZOD? Coke? PNC BANK? There is no question where those come from and what product they are attached to. Small things, such as removing the word "Bank" from the "PNC BANK Arts center" would make them less obvious and flow better.
But flow is not what they are concerned about. They want name recognition and advertisment.
I think that was somehow different from the names of some of the bigger buildings/developments of yesteryear. No doubt Rockerfeller wanted to be known, but I don't think he built the center as a specific ad for his products, but more as his baby. A huge development with his name on it. The feelings are similar, but different enough to change how things are seen by others.
Bottom line is, they have kind have gotten away from even trying to be subtle about this kind of thing. Now, instead of a ferris wheel that would be called the Pepsi wheel, and maybe have little logos on the chairs and entrance gate, they are making a huge 100' tall (I don't know, how tall?) lit, rotating Pepsi logo.
I guess the spinning teacups just weren't good enough for them. I hear Pepto was thinking about them though. Them and the Tilt-a-Whirl.......
there are a number of skyscrapers that are known for or have a prominent logo on them. in the case of psfs, it is such an important part of the building that it remained even after psfs was no longer the name of the company.
this wheel, although not a building, will be a landmark... and we can assume pepsi will be around as a brand for a long time. people will grow to love it (or at least tolerate it).
^Very true.
Of course there will be some haters of the project, but for most people driving thru the ugliest part of the turnpike, it will be a shining beacon, and could very well become an international icon for the NewYork metro region.
^Oh I'm def a hater of it, but much more in terms of the look and the location
It will be in Jersey. So, there is no way to create an international icon there.
I do not like the "Met Life" on the top of this. I think it is clunky-chunky.
This is at the bottom of the bulding. If it was emblazoned up all 4 sides so that you could see it from NJ I would object to it.
I just do not LIKE this building, you are trying to prove a point with this one?
And this ugly one is trying to prove another point???
And I do not like a lot of them. Please show me the logo on the Chrystler Building. How about the Woolworth Building? ESB? picking a few out that have a logo, some not very prominantly displayed either (NYT) does not change my argument.there are a number of skyscrapers that are known for or have a prominent logo on them. in the case of psfs, it is such an important part of the building that it remained even after psfs was no longer the name of the company.
What??!? he whole "landmark to pepsi" is what I am objecting to! You do it subtly an dyou get a longer standing approval and name. Something that people can see and not be bludgeoned with.this wheel, although not a building, will be a landmark... and we can assume pepsi will be around as a brand for a long time. people will grow to love it (or at least tolerate it).
Please post somethnig worth reading, not flame bait.
The Chrysler, Woolworth, Citibank, etc. buildings all became logos of their respective corporations. You still persist in calling 405 Lexington Avenue the Chrysler building, yet Chrysler hasn't owned it since 1957. The building itself was designed as a beacon for the automobile giant.
from wikipedia:
One of the most endearing structures in the NYC skyline is nothing more than a corporate icon. Then again, most of the structures in the skyline are, since it's the corporations who generally foot the bill for the buildings.The distinctive ornamentation of the building is based on features that were then being used on Chrysler automobiles. The corners of the 61st floor are graced with eagles, replicas of the 1929 Chrysler hood ornaments. On the 31st floor, the corner ornamentation are replicas of the 1929 Chrysler radiator caps.
Another, 233 Broadway, is one where the original owner's intent was to build something glorious and synonymous with the corporate name that would stand the test of time. Woolworth's is defunct, but you still call the building by its old corporate name, not by its respective address.
153 E. 53rd Street is very much an icon in the skyline, and has served its purpose well since most people identify it by the corporation that owns or built it, the Citigroup Center.
And finally, many still refer to 200 Park Avenue as the Pan Am building, but today we refer to it by the corporate name that now adorns its facade, the Met Life building.
These are all important landmarks, made famous not because they were buildings corporations purchased naming rights to, but landmarks built so that corporations could affix their names to them and be associated with the greatest and tallest buildings in the world. The roles may have reversed a bit, where the sponsor corporation isn't directly building the icon, but by paying for the naming rights, they're indirectly financing its completion, and thus its possibility to attain icon status.
Its not about whether or not you LIKE the building for its design or architecture, its that a logo or name on the building can become an important feature of the building if done right. What I'm trying to show is that these buildings are known by the name or logo on them. The names and logos on some skyscrapers and buildings are one of the most important features of the building. There are still plenty of people who refer to the Metlife Building as the Pan Am Building, simply because they associate it with the name that was atop it for so many years.
And its only a ferris wheel in New Jersey were talking about here, so its not something to get too crazy about.
Actually Arc, it is the whole thing. I have been watching this as driving by, and the rendering reminds me of a giant 1950's bowling alley.
I am not surprised, but I am disappointed that they did not try something that fit a little more with the environment it was located, the marshland. Instead of blending and making it something like a modern log-construction resort/mall they turned it into a bowling alley/mall/advertisement for Pepsi.
Is it worse than the stadiums? A bit. But no worse than the large lit billboard for the stadiums. It just does not improve the area at all, and I am disappointed with what they spent so much time, money, and legislation to get built.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks