3 ms·
The pictures in this NYT article are worse than useless... the header image I'm pretty sure is CGI, or heavily Photoshopped to the point where it looks like it'
by freehunter 10y ago
The pictures in this NYT article are worse than useless... the header image I'm pretty sure is CGI, or heavily Photoshopped to the point where it looks like it's CGI. We then go to a 1970's model of the entrance to the building for some reason, and then finish it up with a picture of a security camera on the outside of a concrete wall (part of the building? I guess?)
If you click through to The Intercept's article, you get two night-time pictures of the building, the same 1970's model of the entrance (for whatever reason), another night time shot that's too close to make out the building and where the actual focus of the shot is the building behind it, a picture of the intercom (wtf), a blueprint of one of the floors, a fucking sketch of the lobby, a picture of the satellite dishes on top of the building, a Visio document of their network diagram, a logo for one of their programs, another night time picture of the entrance to the building, and then finally a picture from nearly 30 years ago of a man sitting at a computer.
There are way too many pictures in this article that is about a building yet there are zero pictures of the actual building itself! First of all, I thought "Manhattan Tower" was the name of the building. Turns out it's just some building in Manhattan. But for an article about a building, there's a conspicuous lack of pictures of the actual building itself.
- dboreham 10y agoA few years ago I spent a while staring at the building because I had a hotel room on a night floor in the Marquis Times Square and it was right there in front of me. It looks like a typical concrete skyscraper but with no windows. At the time I figured it was a telecoms facility, architected in the local style of Manhattan. Some Googling and reading on the 'pedia confirmed that analysis. There are similar, if not quite so large, buildings in all large cities. There's one in Chicago. There's even one in Silicon Valley, on the North side of Central, near to Bowers.
- jlgaddis 10y agoThe building you're referring to is not the building discussed in this article. I've also stayed in the Marriott Marquis in Times Square but this building (33 Thomas Street, the "AT&T Long Lines Building") is down in Lower Manhattan, quite a distance away from Times Square.
- anamoulous 10y agoHere's a fun webpage about some of the ugly telco buildings in NYC! https://cryptome.org/eyeball/nytel/nytel-eyeball.htm https://cryptome.org/eyeball/nytel/nytel-eyeball.htm
- RockyMcNuts 10y agoThe Verizon building (hub 4) seems to be getting mostly repurposed - http://newyorkyimby.com/2016/08/former-verizon-building-at-375-pearl-street-gets-a-new-look.html http://newyorkyimby.com/2016/08/former-verizon-building-at-3...
- anamoulous 10y agoI saw that the other day. I used to think I couldn't dislike that building any more than I did...
- anamoulous 10y agoHere is a less dramatized photo: https://cryptome.org/eyeball/nytel/33-thomas-070802.jpg https://cryptome.org/eyeball/nytel/33-thomas-070802.jpg It's still pretty dramatic, though. Personally I've always loved walking past that building. [edit] Just to clarify, the NYT photo is certainly not CGI. It's just over saturated. That's really what it looks like when you are standing at the base of the building.
- dom0 10y agoWikipedia has plenty of pics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Thomas_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33_Thomas_Street
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y agoI clicked on the link just to look at the pictures, noticed there weren't any, so looked elsewhere online. I'm gonna guess that this is supposed to be part of the theme of article, the unobservable observers.
- bogomipz 10y agoThis is actually what the Long Lines building looks like in real life. I'm not sure what you are objecting to. The saturation level of the sky looks enhanced, probably to add contrast to the building's surface which is quite dull and muted. But the building itself is naturally dramatic in a dystopian or Art Brut kind of way.
- kevin_thibedeau 10y agoThe first picture is exactly what it looks like.