Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
I don't understand how both opinions can be simultaneously true.
If fat towers ruined Lower Manhattan's skinny profile, fine. If skinny towers ruined Midtown Manhattan's fat profile, fine. But how could both statements be true?
|
The original "skinny towers" had a much smaller height-to-width ratio than the new set. It's actually very simple to understand.
First, the original towers with the "perfect" ratios.
diagram 1 by
David Z, on Flickr
Second, some of the "too fat" towers in downtown Manhattan.
diagram 2 by
David Z, on Flickr
Finally, the new "pencil towers" where the height to width ratios are at least double the original "skinny towers" of lower Manhattan.
diagram 3 by
David Z, on Flickr
In simplified terms, an approximate 5:1 ratio is good, 3:1 ratio got too fat, and 12:1 ratio is so far in the other direction that it's not at all comparable to the 5:1. Thus, of course both things could be true, since the "skinny" buildings went from around 5:1 to 12:1. One can lament the loss of a skyline dominated by a 5:1 ratio while simultaneously thinking that 12:1 is too skinny and looks out of place.
The way you framed your comment is by calling them both "skinny" towers, as if 5:1 and 12:1 were the same. They're not even close to the same. So, "both statements can be true" if you were truthful yourself, by recognizing that 1930's "skinny" and 2020's "skinny" are not apples-to-apples and shouldn't be lumped into the same category.