Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

SuspiciousAdvisor442 t1_iu8sy1q wrote

I love seeing uncommon angles of cities. Almost makes them look fake

255

kjuneja t1_iu8tp02 wrote

Houston up to midtown needs to size up.

NYC needs to redo air rights.

Hold an auction and mandate builders start building UP immediately

−4

thorenv t1_iu8vjwx wrote

I can see my house sort of.

42

EssentiaBottle t1_iu8wt8j wrote

Interesting, but I want it to see to the right, Harlem and up are basically totally excluded

12

quaid31 t1_iu8xzrm wrote

I’d love to see a higher res of this photo (if it exists)

117

midtownguy70 t1_iu8yry1 wrote

Cool but old and missing a lot of prominent new skyscrapers. Hudson Yards in this shot has only one building near completion. It's a whole cluster now. 57th is missing several supertalls as well. The Queens and Brooklyn waterfronts are much more developed now. Also missing One Vanderbilt and Downtown Brooklyn is more built up now. Amazing how much development happened since this was captured.

38

thorenv t1_iu91oa7 wrote

Replying to SoggyWaffleBrunch (#313,703)

It is still true where the bedrock is close to the surface. It’s only that you can build up where there is no bedrock too. I mean, if they can build a leaning tower of tech bros in SF I’m sure they can build up Manhattan. But I like the layout as well. The low buildings generally have more character than the glass monsters built since 9/11.

7

yiannistheman t1_iu92g3c wrote

It's a satellite view, I think they could have at least had the decency to get NYC, and not just Manhattan and slivers of Brooklyn and Queens (along with Jersey).

−3

noliquor t1_iu93qre wrote

Thats allot of bricks & not a single tree. Billions and billions of rats live down there

−14

SwimmerJock t1_iu93rrn wrote

Must be from 2018-19, judging by the sole tower at Hudson Yards

106

datatadata t1_iu98yg4 wrote

When was this taken? This must be prior to 2019 at least. I don't see some of the recent developments that happened the last 3 years or so

3

99hoglagoons t1_iu9gkfn wrote

Replying to functor7 (#316,633)

This is a topic Jane Jacobs covered extensively. A successful neighborhood has to have a mix of old and new buildings. This is going to be a challenge when you are creating neighborhoods from scratch. See Canary Wharf in London or La Defense in Paris. Same energy as Hudson Yards. They all feel eerily detached from rest of the city.

10

preston_f t1_iu9kjhs wrote

Replying to sulaymanf (#317,078)

Sorry to be that guy, but pedantry warning:

Tilt shift is a very specific type of photography where the camera's sensor is literally tilted to make certain parts of the frame blurry in a way that mimics a shallower depth of field.

End of pedantry.

27

maverick4002 t1_iu9kw78 wrote

This is an older picture, no? LIC is more developed now

2

TonyzTone t1_iu9liun wrote

For a city known for its height and density, it’s crazy to think how much of that height is really just office space.

1

midtownguy70 t1_iu9mskd wrote

Replying to 99hoglagoons (#316,846)

A big part of the problem is the way big new buildings are designed at street level.

Retail footprints are large and tend to be rented to chain stores and sterile uses like bank branches- especially all of the prominent corner locations. It creates a feeling of boredom and sameness. The retail spaces face the sidewalk with mostly flat panels of glass and no appearance of individuality or interesting human sized features, no awnings or much of anything protruding or creating semi-protected space for outdoor activity. No variety of scale.

Often, one or two sides of a whole block are designed with dead zones that are nothing but loading docks, service zones and mechanical spaces.

Food is relegated to indoor "food courts" (often in windowless basements of all places), or everyone is eating out of trucks (but lots of coffee coffee coffee shops). Stick an "art gallery" here or there with colorful non-threatening works that the people in the adjacent new condos can match with a sofa. Instant "culture".

Plazas and public spaces are nicely planted but usually lack amenities beyond a few benches, if we're lucky. Open expanses offering little incentive to linger there. These neighborhoods from scratch could easily be designed to be more inviting and charming. A place like Hudson Yards provides locals with very few reasons to ever return, after a first curious walk through.

13

midtownguy70 t1_iu9o4t6 wrote

Replying to kjuneja (#312,458)

You would need another mandate to ensure all of the interesting retail, clubs, restaurants, art galleries and street life down there isn't obliterated by the way those buildings are designed at street level. You know (or maybe you don't) those low rise neighborhoods are where people actually go to hang out and feel the real pulse of city life. The city is better by having a mixture of low rise and high rise. Plenty of places to build up elsewhere without razing the last incredibly vibrant and unique neighborhoods in Manhattan.

4

kjuneja t1_iu9pzsm wrote

Replying to oanda (#313,428)

Obviously there are existing rights holders in play.

It's simple: Use it or lose it.

Compensate the losers and move on with life.

Can't be held hostage by those that think small.

Rezone areas up creating more air rights.

0

trippel t1_iu9qeiu wrote

Replying to preston_f (#317,668)

Sorry to be that guy but pedantry warning:

The image plane can move on its standard or the lens can also move on its standard, it's not limited to the image plane (or sensor, as you have here). Furthermore, limiting the depth of field via a tilt is generally a poor/overused effect related to the optics the lens and/or image plane. Tilts can be used to actually achieve more depth of field. Here's an article with practical examples!

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/tilt-shift-lenses2.htm

18

kjuneja t1_iu9qhnm wrote

Replying to midtownguy70 (#318,310)

>You would need another mandate to ensure all of the interesting retail, clubs, restaurants, art galleries and street life down there isn't obliterated by the way those buildings are designed at street level. You know (or maybe you don't) those low rise neighborhoods are where people actually go to hang out and feel the real pulse of city life. The city is better by having a mixture of low rise and high rise. Plenty of places to build up elsewhere without razing the last incredibly vibrant and unique neighborhoods in Manhattan.

This is all mumbo jumbo that amounts to nothing.

"Feel the real pulse" ... Ok dude you got it. Hook me up

−2

99hoglagoons t1_iu9rmru wrote

Replying to midtownguy70 (#318,069)

This is an excellent architectural critique of folly of developer maximized modern design. I have worked on projects that have a "better base". More human scaled. But this often requires giving up square footage above, and no developer in NYC is gonna do that. Every inch counts when it comes to leasable space. You end up with flat rectangles poking into the sky. You can't even add interesting awnings or similar elements because you are already up to the property line. Zoning laws are not written by people who are design inclined. But if you had no zoning, results would be even worse.

5

Skizm t1_iu9spcx wrote

Hey, that’s my apartment!

2

HFDguy t1_iu9weis wrote

It’s cute how Hoboken is trying to “me too!!”

1

Kendallope t1_iu9y55s wrote

I CAN SEE MY HOUSE FROM HERE

1

pangloss8 t1_iu9y7u2 wrote

That’s cool! I can see my apartment building very clearly!

1

phillyceez t1_iu9zczg wrote

It’s cool to zoom in and spot all the different neighborhoods that I’ve actually walked through Amazing clarity I wonder what the exact elevation was

1

LokiHavok t1_iu9zky2 wrote

Didn't know Williamsburg had such tall structures. Don't remember that when I was there.

0

midtownguy70 t1_iua0con wrote

Replying to kjuneja (#318,777)

It's only mumbo jumbo to someone who remains willfully ignorant and has no understanding of New York City neighborhoods. Either you are annoyingly young and immature or you have never spent more than a week in New York. "Dude".

4

fasulo_ t1_iua4b7x wrote

I can see my house from there

1

pazuzovich t1_iuafna0 wrote

Damn, the place is lousy with buildings.

−2

Aggressive_Echo_1652 t1_iuahsho wrote

Wowwwww... I just can't get over how there's like no open land besides central park and a few very small other probably parks. I live in the largest city, land wise, in America and feel kinda claustrophobic, I'd go crazy living in New York!!! Beautiful picture tho.

−4

winstonpartell t1_iuai48e wrote

so the scale is exact ? i.e. bulding size vs land size

1

christiabm1 t1_iuakn3o wrote

Damn, even in photos folks don’t care about after 96th street. (Here about 110th.) Though, ain’t New York City without the Bronx! Ahhhh, to be privileged. 🙌

1

PlNG t1_iuann7o wrote

😍 Any chance of getting this for long island counties?

1

JudgeJuryJncos t1_iuasfu5 wrote

I would love to see more cities in this view. Not just US cities but all over the world. Especially all those Chinese cities that are bigger than NYC

1

lungleg t1_iuawqzl wrote

Disgusting.

I mean seriously crop Jersey out of that shit.

−1

kevinjamesfan_6 t1_iuaym21 wrote

I have a picture somewhere of NYC from this angle out of a plane window. Looks so cool to see the whole city at this angle

1

Any_Foundation_9034 t1_iub6qq8 wrote

Ah yes, wonderful views of NY. Such great technology.

Meanwhile all photos of earth are CGI.

hahaha.

−1

mcwm t1_iub9csw wrote

This is awesome, though it might be quite old as there are no skyscrapers in north Greenpoint, and there's now half a dozen.

1

nycdiveshack t1_iube8ai wrote

Is it weird I could spot hunter college in less than 5 seconds

1

UnrefinedOre t1_iubfh72 wrote

This looks so cool. Almost feels like it's from Cities Skyline or Sim City.

There's something about the scale that changes the perspective of understanding, almost like we can imagine feeling the density based on the spikiness/roughness of the building heights.

2

Consistent-Height-79 t1_iubl41v wrote

Replying to Aggressive_Echo_1652 (#323,538)

In Manhattan, NYC, and Hudson County, there are quite a number of parks and gardens… verdant, and full of people enjoying them. Some larger than Central Park even, and some little ones tended by local residents. Given that the largest cities land-wise in the US are in Alaska, we can’t compete with those open spaces. If you’re in an actual large city with over 1 million people and lots of square miles, that would be Houston, and despite the more “open” spaces, the car culture would be draining for me.

3

squatter_ t1_iubluhy wrote

This is bitchin. Gives me such a better view of Queens and Brooklyn especially.

1

helloder27 t1_iuchqgj wrote

Yeah it's time they declare Jersey City, Hoboken, Union City, Weehawken as a part of NYC at least for transit and planning purposes instead of Staten Island which didn't even make this picture.

1

neurogramer t1_iucz9nv wrote

It’s pre mid 2017 but definitely after 2015. The House building at Cornell Tech on Roosevelt Island started construction in 2015 and opened in fall 2017, but I do not see it in the image.

1

Malfunctioned t1_iudi7r0 wrote

Replying to LostSomeDreams (#331,109)

Here is a wider view, albeit at lower resolution: https://imgur.com/gallery/1BJ9YWq

Right edge of map, from top to bottom: some NJ land and The Palisade, Henry Hudson Bridge / Inwood / Spuyten Duyvil / Marble Hill, a bit of the Bronx Zoo, Bronx Whitestone Bridge, the large Cunningham Park, western Nassau County from Elmont to Oceanside

Left side of map: various regions of New Jersey from Irvington, Newark (Weequahic Park, Newark Airport), Bayonne to Richmond.

One can get a very similar view on Google Earth: https://earth.google.com/web/@40.74924781,-73.99861917,24.79503829a,57103.51708693d,35y,-33.24886754h,75.69050898t,0r

4

medicaldude t1_iudtn4r wrote

I have this print framed and hanging in my house. So fun to point out little places we’ve been

1

PurpleCopper t1_iuh5oeg wrote

huh, the outer boroughs are pretty damn flat, even manhattan is only marginally taller except for midtown and downtown.

1