NEW YORK | NY Times Tower | 1,046' Pinnacle / 746' Roof | 52 FLOORS - Page 5

CoolCzech · #81 Posted **Nov 26, 2006, 10:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-TOWERS

it's a cheezy spire, should have been thicker

Alas, a standard issue flag pole would have had more visual presence if it was flying Old Glory....

(Why does the term "drinking straw" come to mind??)

CoolCzech · #82 Posted **Nov 26, 2006, 10:58 PM**

Can you imagine a true supertall rising center-of-mass out of this composition?

Scruffy · #83 Posted **Nov 27, 2006, 2:21 PM**

alright now that the final product is able to be interpreted, im officially disapointed. the facade is cool up close and drab from far, the spire was the last thing that i held out hope for and no, it doesn't look too good. sigh. a thicker spire would be better, hell a thick antenna like on conde naste would have been better. i guess its up to bank of america to show up nyt

NYguy · #84 Posted **Nov 27, 2006, 3:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

Can you imagine a true supertall rising center-of-mass out of this composition?

Won't have to imagine it for long. Too many large towers are planned for the West Side, including the area around Penn Plaza. Enjoy the view of the Times Tower on the skyline now.

NYguy · #85 Posted **Nov 27, 2006, 3:17 PM**

NOVEMBER 26, 2006

_

Ktulured55 · #86 Posted **Nov 27, 2006, 6:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolCzech

I hope adding (gulp) more rods to the screens that constitute the base of the NYT's spire will give the whole effect greater visual cohesiveness, at least.

Right now, the entire spire composition is an abject mess.

Name this movie:

Quote: "Don't criticize the cuisine before it's served"

Although this isn't a pretty building really, the glass or whatever they are going to put on the rod-grid things, waffle grids, abject mess, crazy rod-things, whatever you want to call them..... what they put on them will definately help define the top of this tower's height and overall appearance.

When it is COMPLETELY done, than you may call it ugly.

I don't think it's great looking either, but it's not that bad in my opinion and I think it will look better with the finished crown (even if only somewhat better).

kznyc2k · #87 Posted **Nov 27, 2006, 7:12 PM**

Am I happy with the outcome versus the renderings? no.

But at least we're not getting more of this stuff, which I think I'll call "Times Square Tacky 2000"

NYguy · #88 Posted **Nov 27, 2006, 11:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ktulured55

When it is COMPLETELY done, than you may call it ugly.

I don't think it's great looking either, but it's not that bad in my opinion and I think it will look better with the finished crown (even if only somewhat better).

I take it you've never seen an ugly person with nice looking hair...

NYguy · #89 Posted **Nov 28, 2006, 12:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kznyc2k

Am I happy with the outcome versus the renderings? no.

But at least we're not getting more of this stuff, which I think I'll call "Times Square Tacky 2000"

Times Square is supposed to be tacky. On 8th Avenue, there are two ways to go. The way of the Hearst Tower, which is great. Or the way of the Times Tower, which is terrible.

pico44 · #90 Posted **Nov 28, 2006, 12:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Times Square is supposed to be tacky. On 8th Avenue, there are two ways to go. The way of the Hearst Tower, which is great. Or the way of the Times Tower, which is terrible.

Huh? That doesn't even make sense.

You might not like this tower but your grandchildren will think it is brilliant. Great art is often hated very passionately.

antinimby · #91 Posted **Nov 28, 2006, 12:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kznyc2k

But at least we're not getting more of this stuff, which I think I'll call "Times Square Tacky 2000"

Ummm...actually we are.

Coming in Fall 2009.

Thskyscraper · #92 Posted **Nov 28, 2006, 12:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby

Ummm...actually we are.

Coming in Fall 2009.

Yes... That is very tacky. Now I'm kinda hoping they delay it one more time.

antinimby · #93 Posted **Nov 28, 2006, 12:57 AM**

No. Tacky is always better than a hole in the ground.

Besides, judging from the track record of projects in this city, you're not likely to get anything better anyway.

Thskyscraper · #94 Posted **Nov 28, 2006, 1:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby

No. Tacky is always better than a hole in the ground.

Besides, judging from the track record of projects in this city, you're not likely to get anything better anyway.

Yeah. It'll add some more density to the area... I guess that's a good thing.

kznyc2k · #95 Posted **Nov 28, 2006, 1:25 AM**

Dp

kznyc2k · #96 Posted **Nov 28, 2006, 1:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby

Ummm...actually we are

Ah I should have been more clear in my wording. I didn't forget about 11TSq, I just meant to say be glad we didn't (rather than aren't) get more of the same in this instance.

oreoman85 · #97 Posted **Nov 28, 2006, 2:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by antinimby

Tacky is always better than a hole in the ground.

i second that.

CGII · #98 Posted **Nov 28, 2006, 2:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pico44

Huh? That doesn't even make sense.

You might not like this tower but your grandchildren will think it is brilliant. Great art is often hated very passionately.

Once again, don't play oracle. I fricken hate it when people say they know how the future will be. Hey, a lot of people hated the cross Bronx freeway when it was built, so it must be loved and adored today, right?

Alxx611 · #99 Posted **Nov 28, 2006, 2:53 AM**

Typical crappy tourist pics, but recent nevertheless:

pico44 · #**100** Posted **Nov 28, 2006, 3:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CGII

Once again, don't play oracle. I fricken hate it when people say they know how the future will be. Hey, a lot of people hated the cross Bronx freeway when it was built, so it must be loved and adored today, right?

First of all, was the CBE ever considered art? how does that relate to my post?

And whats wrong with predicting future tastes anyway? Gertrude Stein was quite talented in this regard. Why can't I be as well? I guess I could have been more diplomatic and added an "imo" at the end of my post but NYGuy never does so I didn't either. Take care...