Of course the Paramount building is beautiful and intriguing. But is it prominent in Times Square? No. Absolutely not. By far, the advertising signs in the core of Times Square are still the focus and most photographed. This is my point. I bet if you did a survey people wouldn't even know that this building is part of Times Square...but they could tell you the Coca-Cola sign is...BINGO!
And for the record, your quotes are misquoted. Isn't that a bit amateurish? Let's stick to facts. Thanks.
How are they misquoted?
And besides, re said survey of people re Times Square: of course, you must realize that most "people" aren't necessarily that hyper-sensitive in and of themselves to architectural or urban matters, they're not the sort to go around with their copy of
The AIA Guide To New York City or its architectural-guide counterparts. They're, basically, philistines, urbanistically speaking. And as such, they'd probably think
this is just grubby--which doesn't make them right; just stupid.
Remember: just because average folk remember the advertising first and foremost doesn't mean the architecture and urban design in Times Square is--or ought to be--superfluous-to-negligible-to-non-existent. A lot of the time, even when it "seems to be", it isn't--thanks especially to city planning decisions over the past quarter century. It may please those dumb tourists who think it's all about the advertising and nothing else, but it shoots subtly above their heads as well, toward the true urban conoisseur and
civic tourist.
The non-architecture of TLS is born out of a jerkwater misunderstanding of how Times Square truly "works".
So what kind of "facts" do you want me to stick to?