Quote:
Originally Posted by Star Scream
NY guy you clearly aren’t familiar with NY, in that photo you won’t see One Vanderbilt or 30 Hudson. Hence I said 53w53 would be the 4th tallest building in that photo( 432, cpt, Steinway)The photo roughly shows buildings north of ~46th street. Another landmark to use is the MetLife building. Since you can’t see this building and the photo is being taken on a east-west axis you won’t be able to see one Vanderbilt and def not 30 Hudson.
|
The concept he's trying to state is that at its 1,050 foot height, it is being dwarfed or "diminished" in its effect, especially within the Midtown scene. Perspective is one thing depending on the angle or from where at sea level (0') you are viewing it, but on a strict height basis (if you want, throw elevation in there), this will be dwarfed. One 57 for example is dwarfed even though its a super tall. The Chrysler building is a super tall as well, but you might be forgiven for thinking its not given its surroundings.
Forget the photo, as a whole, within Midtown, this is overshadowed. Its design is stellar, but it doesn't have that height buffer to really outshine itself from the competition.
In a few years, this won't even crack the top 15 in height. The ESB for example, is on its way to 10th place and eventually won't even be in the top 10. If the ESB were to be placed on 57th Street, you'd definitely think its loosing its edge of dominance. Location is one thing, but even than, with a developing region North of 30th, its not a safe bet with the coming 900-1000 foot towers on 5th.
Suppose you have 5 towers at heights of 1200', 1000', 950', 940', 900'... even with a 200' + advantage, is it really dominant? The same example applies for Midtown. 432 Park is dominant relative to its surroundings. Place that same tower near CPT, and in 2 years, its magnitude of show power will diminish. Not eliminated, but diminished.