NEW YORK | Bank Of America Tower | 1,200' Pinnacle / 945' Roof | 53 FLOORS - Page 133

NYguy · #**2641** Posted **Mar 2, 2008, 2:05 PM**

Pic by hermit75

JDRCRASH · #**2642** Posted **Mar 2, 2008, 8:25 PM**

It fits in well with the skyline! But like I said; wasn't there previously a +2,000 ft tower proposed before September 11th?

Stu · #**2643** Posted **Mar 2, 2008, 9:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

It fits in well with the skyline! But like I said; wasn't there previously a +2,000 ft tower proposed before September 11th?

For New York no. Trump wanted his Chicago tower to be 2000 ft before 9/11.

vaporvr6 · #**2644** Posted **Mar 2, 2008, 9:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Pic by hermit75

i love the way the city looks when the clouds are low like that.

kingsdl76 · #**2645** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 2:46 PM**

Are you guys nuts?!! Or is that just sarcasm? Of course a supertall would look great in New York! New York for years has been the leader in supertall buildings. Over the last decade a few asians cities and one in the middle east build some supertalls and now people are questioning if the city that truly defined the skyscraper should build tall??....🞵🞵🞵?! Im my opinion NYC should already have a 2000+ tower. It should have several of them. I cant stand these NIMBY's and their 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 and all the other reasons that several other tall, proposed buildings have not been approved in this city.

I truly hate NIMBY's too. They profess love for NYC, yet they attempt, often times with success, to halt the building of mega tall structures. Well...to dislike skyscrapers is to dislike one of the most fundamental characteristics of New York City. This is THE skyscrapercity....and its going to lose its distinction as such, in large part, because of the TrashBY's, who supposedly want to 'preserve' the character of NYC. These people in 1929-30 probably would've fought off the proposals of two other skyscrapers in this city....maybe you've heard of them: Chrysler Building and Empire State Building. Wow....that would've been great for NYC if they hadn't been built right?!....🞵🞵🞵?!

Ok...I'm done I'm just so sick of all this Bullsh*t. This is NYC.....skyscrapers defined this city.....mega-tall, soaring buildings, and we need to keep that tradition alive.

Dac150 · #**2646** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 3:17 PM**

^^^Wow, easy now, easy. The city is still getting a great share of supertalls over the next decade. But what also defines New York City is its balanced, well groomed skyline, and a tower that is the height of say the Burj Dubai, would do nothing but eliminate that characteristic. New York doesn't need those new flashy megatall towers.

pico44 · #**2647** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 3:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYguy

Pic by hermit75

Dear God the NYTimes is beautiful. Great picture.

Dac150 · #**2648** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 3:29 PM**

^^^That really is a great shot. A future classic.

NYguy · #**2649** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 9:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vaporvr6

i love the way the city looks when the clouds are low like that.

Very Gotham...

NYguy · #**2650** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 9:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsdl76

Are you guys nuts?!! Or is that just sarcasm? Of course a supertall would look great in New York! New York for years has been the leader in supertall buildings. Over the last decade a few asians cities and one in the middle east build some supertalls and now people are questioning if the city that truly defined the skyscraper should build tall??....🞵🞵🞵?!

You couldn't have gotten that impression from reading this thread. If so, read it again.

Quote:

Im my opinion NYC should already have a 2000+ tower. It should have several of them. I cant stand these NIMBY's and their 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 and all the other reasons that several other tall, proposed buildings have not been approved in this city.

Buildings aren't built primarily for height in New York, but rather demand. As the flood of new 1,000 ft towers becomes reality in Manhattan, I'm sure some residential developer will want to pull away from the pack. But its not as if the city needs it.

Alxx611 · #**2651** Posted **Mar 4, 2008, 3:57 AM**

I agree, lets be logical here and not build a supertall just because its an uber-pretty glass tower that we want built just so we can selfishly enjoy looking at it.
Most people on this forum are so militantly pro-development that they'll have anything built just because they like the way it looks or because its tall, or mostly in this case, because its tradition to build tall in New York, and any hesitation to agree with this will make you slammed as a NIMBY.
Development should be based mostly on office space demand or space.

JDRCRASH · #**2652** Posted **Mar 4, 2008, 6:40 PM**

^
Exactly!
But from what i've heard around the other NY forums is that the demand is there.

tdawg · #**2653** Posted **Mar 4, 2008, 7:29 PM**

Attention citizens of Earth. THIS is what a skyline should look like. Wow.

scalziand · #**2654** Posted **Mar 4, 2008, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

It's better than having one in a city in the middle of a desert.

Wasn't there going to be a +2,000 ft tower previously planned before the 9/11 attacks?

Do you mean this building?

skellergroup · #**2655** Posted **Mar 4, 2008, 7:51 PM**

I love NYC. But I think this tower, now that it is almost done, is a little disappointing. Don't get me wrong, it is still beautiful. I just expected it to look a little more awe inspiring than it does.

colemonkee · #**2656** Posted **Mar 4, 2008, 9:56 PM**

Some questions for you New York forumers. I'll be in Manhattan for a couple of hours next Wednesday (coming in from a photo shoot in the Bronx), arriving at Grand Central armed with some serious rented lensage.

What's a better location for capturing this building in the early afternoon: Top of the Rock or the Empire State observation deck? Or should I try both? Can I realistically get to both if I only have a couple of hours? Any other vantage points you recommend that I can gain access to?

Sorry for the barrage, but I wanted to make the most of my little time, and get some pictures you guys can enjoy. Don't pollute this thread with the answers. Just send me a PM.

Thanks!

NYguy · #**2657** Posted **Mar 4, 2008, 11:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by colemonkee

What's a better location for capturing this building in the early afternoon: Top of the Rock or the Empire State observation deck? Or should I try both? Can I realistically get to both if I only have a couple of hours?

Go to the ESB first, but try to get your ticket in advance if you can. There's never a wait at the Top of the Rock, although you can get advanced tickets there. But getting to the Top of the Rock is quicker and easier, and if you want a closer look, its better. The ESB deck is not to be missed though.