not quite my friend, you'll find this building in Zürich near the Bahnhofstrasse!
And it's not about pulling over somebody, even if it was a model, it does hit the theme!

@Christopher,

What fooled me into thinking that it is a model is that the top of the building is clearly out of focus. Shooting in daylight with a wide-angle lens, that isn't easy to do. Why is the top of the building out of focus?

no wide angle... and it was cloudy, 12°C, June!
70 mm • f 4.5 • 1/500 sec • ISO 200
hope this explains!
guess i really got you on this one ;)

@Christopher,

Okay, let's see if I can get anything else wrong. When I said "daylight," I didn't mean sunlight.
I see now why I thought, at first, it was a wide-angle shot.

So are you not going to answer my question?

I did!
when focusing on the bottom part of the building with a 70mm lense at a f stop of 4.5 the top will get blurry! DOF!

Ah, I think you mean "lack of" depth of field. Two different things.

And my question was not meant as "How did you make the top of the building out of focus?" but "Why did you make the top of the building out of focus?"
You don't have to answer, and I don't mean to pick on you, but if you want dialog, you've got it.

I'd call it narrow depth of field... "lack of" seems to negative :)
Your original question was why the top is out of focus, this was answered with the facts of the camera and lens settings.
But ok, why did I do it that way...
the building wasn't very tall, we actually don't have any skyscrapers here in Switzerland. So I just tried to make the building seem tall!
That's it!

Chris,

Thanks for broadening your comments. I was especially interested that you don't have any skyscrapers and were ateempting to make the building "seem tall." That makes sense.

I should have used the term, "Shallow depth of field," which is the term I was taught. I come from the view camera, f45 school of perspective and focus control where we can selectively make any part of the image sharp as a tack or out of focus, with depth of field designed to cover the features of interest.

<Lecture>
Depth of field is an illusion of sharpness. There is a two-dimensional, planar field of sharpness, the point of focus. Beyond that is the illusion of sharpness influenced by, among other things, reducing the camera's aperture (smaller f-stop).

To me, and I've argued this point many times on WeeklyShot, simply having a shallow depth of field is a gimmick (not in your case, as you have explained), facilitated by very fast or long telephoto lenses. If it doesn't serve a specific purpose, it's just a trendy effect.

I make a distinction between
1. Out of focus elements,
2. Shallow vs. great depth of field; and
3. Bokeh, which is the artful selection and application of soft, blurry, out of focus areas that add something substantive to the photograph.

Merely reducing depth of field to a minimum for effect alone is not bokeh and is not artful.
</Lecture>

Again, Chris, the preceding was not aimed at you and I hope you don't take offense.