View Single Post
  #22  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2017, 9:15 PM
antinimby antinimby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In syndication
Posts: 2,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by streetscaper View Post
I'm saying that keeping the older buildings around and having them on display for their architectural significance would mean adding minimal or no signage (à la Paramount building) and doing this for multiple sites within TS would create too many gaps for my liking and would be a much less impressive Times Square (like in the 90s).
And that's where you are limited in mindset. A building can have multiple signs, not just one large one. Look at 3 TS (Reuters), this is a modern building but the point I'm trying to make is that it has multiple signs and it has the same effect, if not a better and more interesting effect than one large TV screen.

You also seem to have a biased thinking that TS is about LED. TS has historically been well lit up with neon and billboards. LED's didn't come on to the scene until late 1990's. TS has been a tourist attraction well before LED's, so obviously LED's is not what makes TS special. You keep on thinking about the 80's and '90's TS but that was due to urban crime and decay. If you go back further, say the 1920's through 1960's, TS was as awe-inspiring and exciting as it ever was and it did not have one single LED screen.


Quote:
And maybe I need to repeat this a third time because you don't get it. We have a difference of opinion. It's really ok to have one. I'm not seeking to impose mine on yours or make mine appear as fact. Some people think TS is indeed generic, some people think it's awe-inspiring and like no (or almost no) place on earth.
And like I said, much of that interest from tourists is based on the site's reputation. No one really is really is impressed by LED screens, big, small or otherwise. LED screens are not in themselves why people go there. They go there because it is a famous site. They see it on TV. They hear about it in the news.





Quote:
In general, I agree. But, I frankly don't care about the buildings in Times Square because I don't go there to see the architecture per se. Like most tourists, I go there to see the head-spinning, larger than life LEDs and ads and tens-of-thoudands of people moving through and idling in the square (because of all the signage). If we could have all the signage we currently have over all the old buildings.
Very few places you go to see the architecture but architecture has a way of influencing your impression of a place, almost subconsciously. A TS with nothing but glass buildings and a big LED screen at the base becomes less interesting. Eventually, even its past reputation and fame will not be able to overcome the generic-ness if it continues down that path. It hasn't gotten to that point yet so you will continue to be able claim that it is "the most popular tourist attraction...blah...blah" but it may not always be the case in the future.