>>1008638You're likewise not getting what I'm saying. The height of a building is not the determinant of its effect on the pedestrian life of the street. What matters is how it relates to the street at the pedestrian level. I mention the Empire State Building because it's a place I've been and you're wrong, it is mixed use - it has retail shops and restaurants on the ground floor. From the sidewalk you can't even tell it's taller than six stories unless you step way back and look straight up, and then the locals mock you for it.
Contrast that to the towers-in-parking-lots here
>>1008531, which have no relationship to the street and seem designed to stand in spite of the city rather than integrate with it.
On that subject, pic related is another example from places I've experienced personally - One Shell Square, the tallest building in New Orleans. That's it on the left. On the right is the St. Charles Hilton, built in the 1920s. Look at how you can't tell how tall either of them are from the street level, but the design of the 1970s office tower still destroys what would otherwise be a nice pedestrian-friendly street. It's a goddamn bunker. Meanwhile the Hilton relates to the street with human-scale features, presenting arches, awnings, windows, and entrances, which create visual interest and integrate it with the surroundings. In addition, there is a cornice and visual break between the lower street facade of the Hilton and its upper elevation, whereas what you see from Shell continues straight up to a vanishing point in the sky.
tl;dr it's not shadows or offices that repel pedestrians, it's spooky, human-hostile design and use segregation.
