Where was this '70 brochure photo shot?

[amazinblue82]

To me Grosse Point MI would be a sound guess if there weren't two separate buildings in the background: the windows are on different level. Therefore the floors are on different levels, too. I have never seen a large private residence that would have been deliberately designed so akwardly. Therefore, there must be two separate plots. Townhouses built wall to wall to each other. Furthermore, there would seem to be a passageway between the buildings, leading to a backyard. Therefore, a city building. - What do you think?

A city building is the best guess I agree with you, especially if a courtyard is present..

As somebody already mentioned, Detroit always had land area to spread out as it grew. Places like New York City were relatively landlocked, so they built UPWARDLY and DENSELY as they grew .. you'll get places that look like that Sloan-Gould property. Two residences BUT effectively THREE buildings each slightly different.

Then you have this thing .. the Henry Frick House on Fifth Avenue across from Central Park.

Henry Clay Frick House - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frick House has got a "driveway" in front of it, its limestone construction with Italian design, looks like three different buildings though its not, and its gigantic even though it was built as a single family home . Upon close inspection, it is NOT the brochure building though .. and its one of a hundred similar buildings sprinkled around NYC.

Now if you just drive the "Google Map Man" around the corner on 70th Street (the street to the right (South) of Frick House), you get this "similar" but also incorrect set of three buildings ..ALL different single family homes. The Upper East side is full of these plus the commercial buildings.

And we havent looked yet in Washington, or Philadelphia, or Chicago, etc. Or even buildings that may have been torn down since 1969. So our challenge is obvious unless somebody finds the information we need.

All the best in the search .. I will be watching and helping if I find anything new .

 

[72Fury]

I inherited it. It's one of the properties I go maintain and will eventually sell, or rent. Sell will be better. I was fishing for someone to ask to see a pic hint ;0

I'll bite! Post up a picture & a short history on it.

 

[tallhair]

I'll bite! Post up a picture & a short history on it.

Thanks. I put it in the where else would you live thread already

 

[MOVE N UP]

The key has got to be the doorway....almost all "Brownstones" / "Lime-stones" have an arched entry = the one in the ad shows a squared top

 

[commando1]

The key has got to be the doorway....almost all "Brownstones" / "Lime-stones" have an arched entry = the one in the ad shows a squared top

Well, that narrows it down to 50,000 units in every upper scale historic district across the country. With a circular driveway coming up to the front entrance.

 

[3C's & a D?]

The key has got to be the doorway....almost all "Brownstones" / "Lime-stones" have an arched entry = the one in the ad shows a squared top

The last photo in amazingblue82's last post shows buildings of a similar construction with square tops. Given that this is a New Yorker ad. I would hope that it is actually New York. Not a requirement though. It is a densely populated urban street with the car on an angle and a hedge in a planter in the middle of the street and one on the curb, giving the illusion of a private driveway.

 

[78Brougham]

Looks like a building in a scene from "Trading Places" parts of which were shot in Philly.

 

[amazinblue82]

The last photo in amazingblue82's last post shows buildings of a similar construction with square tops. Given that this is a New Yorker ad. I would hope that it is actually New York. Not a requirement though. It is a densely populated urban street with the car on an angle and a hedge in a planter in the middle of the street and one on the curb, giving the illusion of a private driveway.

Thats a good point .. maybe this brochure photo is an ACTUAL place, or its "illusory" somehow .. not on a Hollywood backlot but in a form of 70's "photoshopping" of different real places? Having said that, I tend to think its a REAL place (reflection of the building on on the hood of the car, for example).

But that darn circular driveway (detmatt said it earlier) is an odd combination of (a) DENSE, limestone architectures typical in a city LIKE New York (big money, big population, and old but well-maintained turn-of-century constructions) BUT (b) having enough space to put that feature in. Just usually not enough "frontage" or "setback" in a big city locale like NYC to build a driveway like that. Though, oddly, that feature may narrow down the possible big city places this could be.

Plus, as pointed out earlier, you have that archway between the two structures in the brochure photo .. it goes somewhere and if to a courtyard, that's another odd way to narrow down the possible location.

Anyway, re-stating the obvious, we need an "eyewitness" on this one, and/or a photo of this location if it still exists, because there are just TOO many places to sort through.

 

[330dTA]

I thank you all, and special thanks to you, amazinblue82. Very good points. My thoughts have run along the same lines: that circular driveway in front of an upscale townhouse, in a densely built neighborhood, is an odd combination indeed. It narrows down the number of candidates. - Down from the 50 000 and some specimens, which commando1 estimated. Why, in the end, this place might be just as easy to track down as a well-preserved specimen of a '70 New Yorker 2 door with buckets and a console, lol!

The period Kodak 127 film, which I think was used here, and respective camera lens distort the picture, widening the front of the car significantly, and the driveway along with it. But it still seems to be a curving driveway in front of the sidewalk proper.

 

[MrMoparCHP]

I have been looking at this picture and feel it has been staged. I do not feel that there is any setback on these structure and the car is not on a driveway. The car is in the street and the bush seen by the left headlight along with the "curb" were placed there for this picture as was the bush in the lower left corner of the picture.

That being said the two men are standing on the sidewalk the runs up the street.


Alan

 

[MrMoparCHP]

Also you have to ask yourself, where would they take a picture of a "New Yorker"? uh, New York?


Alan

 

[amazinblue82]

the case for fakery could surely be made ... some fancy lenswork like 330dTA and others theorized and/or other 70's era "special effects".

to me a helluva waste of money when so many "real" places existed to use as backdrops ... but "frugal" was not in the Big Three's vocabulary back then

 

[330dTA]

The car is distorted to the max, but the background seems to have been shot with a different lens, from further away, there being practically no distortion at all. What is more, the far rear corner of the car sits peculiarly high. - A well made piece of period "photoshopping", then. They even took pains to replicate the iron fence which you can see through the windshield. That was a pretty elaborate feat to accomplish then, without a computer.

Case closed?

 

[amazinblue82]

The car is distorted to the max, but the background seems to have been shot with a different lens, from further away, there being practically no distortion at all. What is more, the far rear corner of the car sits peculiarly high. - A well made piece of period "photoshopping", then. They even took pains to replicate the iron fence which you can see through the windshield. That was a pretty elaborate feat to accomplish then, without a computer.

Case closed?

my reluctance to close the case of for "fakery" is HOW (a) did they get the reflection of the right-side building on the car's hood to look "right", and (b) the building details thorough the car windows to show?

no doubt, as many have pointed out, there some goofy looking contours in the photo .. passenger side, C pillar forward, the car looks "bent" (kinda the way things on the other side of a door "peephole" look) and the guys on the sidewalk/steps look "too small" in stature compared to the car (its like they are too far away from the camera versus to the car).

yeah, the case for alteration of the an original photo, or "shopped' version of two or more photos, is strong. BUT -- the buildings still look "real", discounting the driveway thing IF it's faked, so I still wish we could find those structures.

my bet is real buildings are/were in NYC, somewhere around Central Park, between Fifth Avenue and Park Avenue (West to East) and between 59th Street and 79th Street (South to North) or the middle section of photo below (looking south in Manhattan).

maybe 2000-2500 structures in that neighborhood of the right architecture and age that are still standing, but a manageable search area to drive the "Google Map Man" through if someone has the time and maybe stumble upon this place

 

[78Brougham]

The car is distorted to the max, but the background seems to have been shot with a different lens, from further away, there being practically no distortion at all. What is more, the far rear corner of the car sits peculiarly high. - A well made piece of period "photoshopping", then. They even took pains to replicate the iron fence which you can see through the windshield. That was a pretty elaborate feat to accomplish then, without a computer.

Case closed?

I disagree, if a good photographer took this picture, and I'm sure it was, he could adjust the f-stop to make sure every one was in focus.
You guys are thinking to much into this simple ad.

 

[commando1]

No, Alan is correct.
The perspective of the car "in a driveway" is totally different from the perspective of the building fronts. The pic of the car was overlaid onto the buikding background.
Nice job of creating the reflections on the car's hood, tho...

 

[330dTA]

...The pic of the car was overlaid onto the building background. Nice job of creating the reflections on the car's hood, tho...

Exactly my thoughts. I never thought of this before; I always thought that it was a genuine shot... but many sharp eyed commentators here made me think again:

There were two photos that were overlayed. Perhaps they were shot in the same place. That would explain the reflections on the hood. Only they used two different lenses in the camera, and aimed it just a little bit differently. Therefore two perspectives. - I still think it's a real place. Somewhere on the upper Manhattan.

 

[commando1]

still think it's a real place. Somewhere on the upper Manhattan.

Oh, the place is absolutely real.
The problem with it could be anywhere in any city including Toronto and Quebec.
Even the odds of finding another pic of just the facade of that building anywhere else on the internet is a billion to one, if it exists at all.
It just can't be done.

I just "walked" up and down Commonwealth Ave. and Beacon St. in Boston. The Street View walks took over an hour. It ain't there.

My money is Fifth Avenue in NYC. because of the plethora of use of Limestone buildings on it. Plus Fifth Avenue would be logical.

An additional note, Young & Rubican was the ad agency of record for Chrysler in 1970 and they were and are based in NYC.

 

[MrMoparCHP]

No, Alan is correct.
The perspective of the car "in a driveway" is totally different from the perspective of the building fronts. The pic of the car was overlaid onto the buikding background.
Nice job of creating the reflections on the car's hood, tho...

I never said there was any trickery other than the placement of the two planters.

I'm 100% sure this is shot as one picture, no overlay or merging of multiple pictures, only typical 60's burning and dodging techniques along with old school airbrush techniques only to enhance the picture to balance the lighting and highlight the subject.

I'm also 100% sure the location is the Upper East Side and probably between 5th and Madison, 59th and 65th. I went through that area (to Park Ave and up to 110th) The area just felt right, couple close but not exact, didn't look for the nextdoor building.


Alan

 

[amazinblue82]

I "walked" 70th, 71st, and 72nd streets, between Fifth and Park, and also Fifth, and Madison, and Park Avenues, between those three streets (so SIX blocks, both sides, so maybe 60 structures) and I didn't see it what we are looking for .. several close, but definitely not this set of buildings.

Took about an hour and half, to move down each street, do the 360 views at each stop, etc. to make sure I studied the facades for the fine details (wrought iron, archways, window shapes, floor levels, lights, surface relief, etc.). Its kinda tedious work actually.

I did see 20-30% "new" (post 1930's to current date) construction that could have supplanted two or three plots of the 1880-1920's era constructions in the brochure photo .. so whatever was there before is gone today.

LAST THING FOR ME ON THIS ONE: FUN THREAD 330dTA

As many have observed, "something" isn't quite right with this photo as I think we can safely conclude .. too many anomalous things. The reflection things (on the hood, and passenger side of car) are still buggin' me at bit.

Where are the guys standing in the doorway -- you can see both lights, a double light in the open door, but no trace of the two men in the black an gray suits -- unless that "Nike Swoosh" reflection is the white shirt of the guy in gray? But the first guy to the left of the stairs IS there in the hood reflection.

Maybe its nothing ... the paint does NOT make the car a perfect mirror

Passenger side .. the shrubbery reflection (could be "props" or real, i dunno) is there on front door/fender. But look on the rear door/quarter panel and you can see a NON-typical NYC curbside across the street .. is that grass, another sidewalk, and some building with a tree next to it, and then open sky (.i.e., NO building density as you would expect given what's behind the car)?