Back when Flickr actually was an active hub of discussion between amateur photographers, I posted a photo I’d taken in downtown Philly and asked for advice about architectural photography, since I found it very difficult.
One of the smart respondents noted the importance of a wide-angle lens, but went on to say that the real key was to not stay at ground level—to look constantly for ways to get a new perspective by finding decks, roofs, open windows, etc. to shoot from. Or sometimes, try to find a way to go down—into culverts, into gullies, and so on. “Just bring a step ladder, really, and that’s already enough to get a new look on buildings”.
I’m not driven enough to do that for the most part. When I stay in a hotel that’s a tall building, I pray that the windows are clean enough to shoot through. (I once stayed in Miami in a hotel that had a pool deck about ten floors up and I thought that was going to be a great opportunity to take night shots of the cityscape, only the hotel staff refused to allow it, I think because they were afraid of voyeurism directed at other high-rise buildings.)
The glass wasn’t that clean this time, but I did what I could.
That light in New York that captures steam and smoke in the canyons between buildings is just the best, but it’s absolutely one of those things you can’t do justice to from street level.
I did do some street-level shooting too. But it’s the usual problem I have with cityscapes and architecture: finding a way to place what I see as I look at buildings to a framing that communicates that vision.
Some buildings, on the other hand, demand that you look at them and photograph them from particular angles. They control your eyes and your frame. At that point, I get very stubborn and look for something that dissents from their insistence.