FW skyline on new NBC5 set
#1
Posted 02 April 2008 - 09:46 AM
http://www.nbc5i.com...82/detail.html#
And yes - they are still in the same building on Broadcast Hill. Mike Snyder said that the historic building has not changed on the outside but that the inside has been totally gutted and redone.
#2
Posted 02 April 2008 - 09:58 AM
#3
Posted 02 April 2008 - 10:18 AM
#4
Posted 02 April 2008 - 12:23 PM
http://www.nbc5i.com...82/detail.html#
And yes - they are still in the same building on Broadcast Hill. Mike Snyder said that the historic building has not changed on the outside but that the inside has been totally gutted and redone.
Spectacular shot. In fact, as soon as the skies clear I am going to grab my tripod, take some pictures from the same angle at the same time of day, and then take full credit for them! (Everybody pretend they don't look familiar please.)
#5
Posted 02 April 2008 - 12:31 PM
Click on "NBC 5 Unveils New Set" and go to slide 32 of 35 and see what it looks like on the set. I think it looks great!
#6
Posted 03 April 2008 - 07:23 AM
#7
Posted 03 April 2008 - 04:17 PM
#8
Posted 03 April 2008 - 06:33 PM
The photograph used on their set is taken from the Trinity River bottoms just south of Oakwood Cemetery. I doubt they could put a live cam in that location because of vandalism close to the ground. If they put it up on a tower, the Corps of Engineers probably wouldn't allow it.
#9
Posted 04 April 2008 - 12:02 AM
Quite nice photography though.
#10
Posted 04 April 2008 - 06:30 PM
#11
Posted 04 April 2008 - 07:22 PM
--
Kara B.
#12
Posted 05 April 2008 - 08:01 AM
#13
Posted 05 April 2008 - 08:21 PM
I guess it is a good thing that the SBC/AT&T building is not visible in the photo.
It is sad that our tallest buildings are our ugliest. At least The Tower looks better than it did pre-tornado. While it is boring and bland, Carter Burgess does not especially bother me too much. But to me, City Center and Burnett Plaza are eyesores. Maybe someday they, too, will be reskinned or they will be surrounded by taller buildings and thus be less visible.
#14
Posted 05 April 2008 - 10:50 PM
Bruce Burton
#15
Posted 07 April 2008 - 09:09 AM
#16
Posted 07 April 2008 - 05:13 PM
#17
Posted 07 April 2008 - 08:39 PM
I know I'm the pollyanna of the forum, but I really don't see why everyone is so down on the Fort Worth skyline. Given the terrain, the history of the city, and its place just 30 miles from another great city, I think the criticism is unexamined. The photo above is magnificent. The Fort Worth skyline is a graceful and elegant testament to the 125 year history of a city that has defied its critics. By many accounts, it should be just another Arlington or Irving. Yet it refuses to acquiesce. I still am inspired by Fort Worth's skyline whether the approach is from the south, north, east or west (although my favorite view of the skyline is from the west looking east).
#18
Posted 07 April 2008 - 09:39 PM
#19
Posted 08 April 2008 - 12:25 AM
--
Kara B.
#20
Posted 08 April 2008 - 06:19 AM
That is a very nice daytime shot, photography wise. However, I don't dislike the FW skyline, because I have a fascination with flashy towers. I have a fascination with attractive, well designed buildings, be it 50 stories, or 5 stories. The FW skyline is simply one of the ugliest of any city its size, and it has nothing to do with comparison to Dallas. I also agree that a good street activity is important and DTFW works somewhat better there. But I think a modern city can easily have both...see Seattle for example. A once more blue collar based city that now has one of the most beautiful skylines in the country and still has tons of street level activity downtown. I love FW but I found its skyline unattractive as a kid and still do, especially since it has changed very little. Downtown is nice suprise when you get there, but for many the skyline is one of thier only impressions of FW and I've actually seen people frown or grimmace when they see it on the news. It's not that big a deal though, if you like it you like it, if you don't, you don't. It ain't going nowhere anytime soon.
BTW, I don't find Portland's skyline that bad. It's not tall but it's still more attractive than FW and there's s few highrise structures going up there that are fairly impressive.
#21
Posted 08 April 2008 - 02:44 PM
I find the skyline to be appropriately sized for the city size, its not outstanding but it isnt bad either. I totally agree AG that street life, pedestrian orientation, and human scale is much more important than even (well designed) highrises. Fort Worth is well on its way in that department. Projects like the Trinity, Museum, So7, they really excite me more than a new 40 or 50 story tower would.
#22
Posted 08 April 2008 - 04:22 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users