[tomfoolery]

I grew up in that area, and can testify that location means everything as far as reception from the NYC area goes, and it's likely only gotten worse since 9/11, and from the digital transition. #1 WTC was supposed to host TV transmission from most NYC stations going forward, but I don't know where that sits now. If they move from the Empire State Building, it could help more distant NY, NJ, and CT locations if they don't also lower their power output. CT is hilly, and it's easy to get behind a hill or ridge and have poor reception, even relatively close in. My parents' house won't get DTV at all now, and even analog was poor but receivable growing up. Except for the few UHF stations, which were so ghosted they were unwatchable.

Playing with your GPS coordinates, it looks like height above ground yields big benefits as you go up, but the coordinates are only a rough estimation of your actual location (truncated), so moving the location to the top of a hill also makes for huge improvements.

Any chance of putting up a tower?

I might suggest you try the mapping function, dragging the location right on top of the planned antenna, to see if it's better. You can use the satellite view to verify actual location.

I can understand wanting the NYC stations (the virtual channel numbers and call letters are like old friends, except for WNYW which used to be WNEW), but unless you're on top of a hill and/or they move the transmitting antennas up another 300 ft by relocating to #1 World Trade Center, it's going to be tough to get reliable reception from there.