View Poll Results: TWIN TOWERS II or the Freedom Tower

Voters
63. You may not vote on this poll
  • TWIN TOWERS II

    51 80.95%
  • The Freedom Tower

    12 19.05%
Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 126

Thread: TWIN TOWERS II vs. The Freedom Tower

  1. #106
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Which is why I asked about 30 Rock, which you didn't answer.
    Because it is a mutually exclusive point. The principle that putting company names on top of a tower is tasteless has nothing to do with the design of the tower but rather what the tower is being used for. Case and point: I feel the same for both Metlife & 30 Rock (RCA or GE) regarding the lettering; as far as design, they are opposite of each other IMO.

  2. #107

    Default

    Not mutually exclusive...

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    The mere act of using the top of a tower as some uncontextual billboard is tasteless to me.
    I feel the same for both Metlife & 30 Rock (RCA or GE)
    There's that bugaboo...uncontextual.

    Remember, we weren't talking about MetLife, but the Pan Am sign.

    Unlike RCA and GE wich migrated to 30 Rock, the Pan Am building was built for Pan Am. It took its shape from an airfoil; the roof was a heliport; the building represented the company when it was an American icon. It hardly needed advertising on its tower.

    Three companies, more than any other, symbolized America in the late 60s. All three appear in 2001, A Space Odyssey

    Probably why some of us here don't like to refer to it as MetLife.

  3. #108

    Default

    Didnt MetLife sell it anyway?

  4. #109
    10 Barclay = Decepticon Optimus Prime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Isle of Manna-hata
    Posts
    284

    Default

    To a group led by Tishman Speyer, yes.

  5. #110
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Not mutually exclusive...

    There's that bugaboo...uncontextual.
    Remember, we weren't talking about MetLife, but the Pan Am sign.
    Well I guess I should have put the Pan Am sign in the mix too. Same effect whether its the Metlife or Pan Am. Still tastelessly using the top of your tower as a billboard.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Unlike RCA and GE wich migrated to 30 Rock, the Pan Am building was built for Pan Am. It took its shape from an airfoil;
    Airfoil.....eh, huh, I never knew that. But I though an airfoil is supposed to be asymmetrical with a smooth round side and a flat side?





    Maybe in abstract I guess. But anyways....

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    the roof was a heliport; the building represented the company when it was an American icon. It hardly needed advertising on its tower.
    Right, so if your tower is a prominent representation of your company (as you suggest) why the overkill of putting your name on top of it too?? Perhaps marketing? Which then in that case it proves my point about being tasteless. Besides, it did not stop with Pan Am as this obviously was a tact that Metlife used also when they had the building.

  6. #111

    Default

    ^
    The point is that the significance of the Pan Am sign is tied to the building and its time, and might be difficult to understand if you weren't around at the time.

    Not the same evocation as Met Life. Refer to the original post.

  7. #112
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    And like I said that was marketing overkill. Given the fact that using the top of towers as billboards does not bother you; taking into account the fact that the building was so tied to Pan Am, what Metlife did was pretty unscrupulous. Just like a lot of marketing schemes.

  8. #113

  9. #114

    Default

    Or how about Conde Nast? Rooftop billboards for hire.

  10. #115
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    That too.

    Quote Originally Posted by ablarc View Post
    Or how about Conde Nast? Rooftop billboards for hire.
    Please find...

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    The mere act of using the top of a tower as some uncontextual billboard is tasteless to me. The only exception to this is the screens at top 4 TS. I know it may sound contradictory but it doesnt bother me as much. Maybe because the fact that that is the purpose of the screens and they serve as a commemoration to the the advertiment flamboyancy of times square; so IMO there is some depth as to purpose and contextualism. Also the animation give it some interest, its not some letters pasted atop of the building trying to use its height as a marketing gimmick.

    I'd much rather the opposite and that is what New York Life does....use the building as part of its company logo.

  11. #116
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    I wouldn't vehemently oppose that.
    Well, good luck getting the hotels to agree to that.

    What confuses me about your "tasteless advertising" argument is: how can you be against a MetLife or a GE sign at the very top of a skyscraper (which you can't see unless you're in Manhattan and within a certain number of blocks) and for the Conde Nast screens, which you can see from New Jersey? Do you really think either MetLife or GE gain new customers because people can see the company's name when they look up at the building? I doubt it.

    The reality is, it's not explicitly advertising. It's pasting your company's name on a building you own. Why? I don't know, but why not? I just don't see the harm.

    If you think New York is bad when it comes to these things, you should take a look at other cities' skylines. Some have around half of their tallest buildings with the names of their occupants pasted at the top.

  12. #117
    Forum Veteran TREPYE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    2,200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianoman11686 View Post
    Well, good luck getting the hotels to agree to that.
    They dont have to agree with it if its law. Besides, hotels (specially in NYC) do fine W/O em.

    Quote Originally Posted by pianoman11686 View Post
    What confuses me about your "tasteless advertising" argument is: how can you be against a MetLife or a GE sign at the very top of a skyscraper (which you can't see unless you're in Manhattan and within a certain number of blocks) and for the Conde Nast screens, which you can see from New Jersey?
    Explained that already; look a couple of posts above. You cant understand that logic or dont like it....oh well. And yes GE and Metlife signs are very visible from areas outside Manhattan to the south. Specially in higways in the NJ (I-78) and Brooklyn (BQE) sides.

    Quote Originally Posted by pianoman11686 View Post
    Do you really think either MetLife or GE gain new customers because people can see the company's name when they look up at the building? I doubt it. The reality is, it's not explicitly advertising. It's pasting your company's name on a building you own. Why? I don't know, but why not? I just don't see the harm.
    The same reason companies pay money to have commercial airtime, billboards next to the highway, SPAM; the more in consumers psyche you are in the most likely they will use your product when its needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by pianoman11686 View Post
    If you think New York is bad when it comes to these things, you should take a look at other cities' skylines. Some have around half of their tallest buildings with the names of their occupants pasted at the top.
    Oh, I know and the though of NYC ever looking like that perturbs me. The NYC skyline is above that and putting company names a top of scrapers is beneath a skyline that bears so much quality.

  13. #118
    The Dude Abides
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NYC - Financial District
    Posts
    4,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TREPYE View Post
    They dont have to agree with it if its law. Besides, hotels (specially in NYC) do fine W/O em.
    Oh, really? What about all these?











    Explained that already; look a couple of posts above. You cant understand that logic or dont like it....oh well. And yes GE and Metlife signs are very visible from areas outside Manhattan to the south. Specially in higways in the NJ (I-78) and Brooklyn (BQE) sides.
    You're right, I just don't understand your logic there. Doesn't make any sense. You even said: "it might sound contradictory." It does. And you've got to be kidding with the commemorative Times Square advertising nonsense.

    The same reason companies pay money to have commercial airtime, billboards next to the highway, SPAM; the more in consumers psyche you are in the most likely they will use your product when its needed.
    Like I said: I think you'll be hard-pressed to find people that bought more products and services from GE and MetLife because they saw the sign on top of their building. Not AT ALL the same as billboards and commercials.

  14. #119

    Default

    ^ How new or old is the mansard on W Union Square?

  15. #120
    Senior Member NewYorkDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    499

    Default

    What is the building beside the W Union Square with the huge fire escape? Is it still there?

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 383
    Last Post: July 21st, 2012, 02:38 PM
  2. New Condo Towers in Williamsburg
    By ASchwarz in forum Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, and SI Real Estate
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: April 5th, 2004, 08:42 PM
  3. NYC Targets 5.4M SF in New Brooklyn Office Towers
    By billyblancoNYC in forum Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, and SI Real Estate
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: June 16th, 2003, 09:43 PM
  4. Turtle Bay Towers?
    By pvd02906 in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: May 13th, 2003, 10:26 AM
  5. Two New Downtown Towers
    By ASchwarz in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 14th, 2002, 11:35 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software