190 replies to this topic

[Phil Phillips]

Looking west on Lancaster near T&P Warehouse - 1950s



2008. Deleted earlier photos and substituted this newer shot with Lancaster finished. Couldn't duplicate the height from which original was taken.

[ramjet]

This thread is terrific! Thanks, Phil Phillips. Can anyone tell what was playing at the Hollywood in the '30's? And wouldn't it be great if today downtown businesses added some funky, oversized neon signage like was present in downtown's yesteryear....

[Owen]

Yeah. Downtown in the 50s & 60s was an interesting place at nigfht, not least because of the signage, but because of those big movie palaces.

[Phil Phillips]

The West-facing sign for the Hollywood appears to say "Lionel Barrymore". I can't see the name of the movie.

Yes, downtown has become a bit too sterile. Perhaps the city needs to recognize that sign regulations in the central city don't have to be the same as the suburbs.

[Fort Worthology]

John can probably speak more about this, but downtown's sign ordinances actually encourage creative signs and neon. Several recent downtown places have very nifty signs - the 3rd Street Garage, Taverna (though a bit small), Scat Jazz Lounge (theirs is just greatness), the Palace Theater, etc.

[cajunmike]

Being a young man of 57, I do remember going to the theaters downtown. I took my first date to the Hollywood and remember going with some guys to see 2001 A Space Odessey. It was a big deal to go downtown to the movie.

[John T Roberts]

Yes, the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines do try to encourage more creative signs, including the use of neon. However, I don't know how those guidelines work when stacked up against the city's sign ordinance, which has become more restrictive over the last few years. Maybe large signs like the 3rd Street Garage have received some kind of special variance to go oversized.

I will agree that back in the 1950's and 1960's the lack of restrictions on the signs helped to make each streetscape unique and different. I actually wish some business owners would try to bring back some of that old style neon look. The Electric Building used to be filled with signs. In addition to the large Hollywood blade sign and its marquee, the building had two 7-story signs on the south and west facades for Fort Worth Power & Light (later changed to Texas Electric Service Co.), and "Hollywood Theater" on top of the roof of the annex along Lamar. Actually, these signs were very well placed due to the grid shift at 7th and Lamar and the building was on the west edge of the downtown high rise district. Only the Medical Arts Building was further west, but it's tower was one block to the south, so it gave the Electric Building a full view coming toward town on West 7th Street, and also a great signage display from the Cultural District hillside.

[Owen]

Ah, the memories. But I bet the gaudiest building at night in all of Fort Worth was the Bowle Theatre in Arlington Heights.

[TexasPacific52]

Phil, where did the first pic in "Looking west on Lancaster near T&P Warehouse - 1950s" come from? That must the track the street guys found under the black top & ripped out a few years ago. Have any more of with T&P or RR views?

John Briggs
FTW

[Phil Phillips]

I don't remember where I found that one. You may already know about it, but look at the www.fortwortharchitecture.com home page and click on the Jack White Collection menu on the left. There is an entire category of railroad photos. When I get to work tomorrow, I'll try to figure out where the photo came from.

This photo is very interesting, showing tracks where the Post Office now stands and the old T&P terminal.
Rail Yard

[Phil Phillips]

1960, looking NE from West Frwy.



2008. The original view is now blocked by elevated exits from the new I-30. This shot is about 100 yds. closer to DT and 10 feet higher.



This is the 2008 shot that roughly matches original.

[Fort Worthology]

Thanks for those, Phil! Though they just make me miss the Medical Arts Building (and loathe Burnett Plaza) even more.

[cbellomy]

AG, they also make me want to lose the Federal Building, which totally ruined the view from the southwest.

[Phil Phillips]

1960s, looking NE from West Frwy.



Retaken today with better lighting on older, small buildings, 2008. With relocation of I-30 to the south, the bridge from which original taken no longer exists. This is close but the original was taken further away, further left, with more zoom. That's why the federal courthouse appears larger in the original. Tried from the Summit bridge, but too hign and angle not correct.

[Phil Phillips]

Looking west on 7th at Houston, 1968. Photo courtesy, Kevin Foster, FWPD.



2008. AG, you're not gonna like this one either. Lots of buildings missing.

[Brian Luenser]

Phil, you are the Master. Incredible work.

This last set, on Seventh Street... I am going to speculate that this comparison shows, more than any other, the degree of changes in the last 40 years. At first I thought you may have tipped a few too many at the Longhorn watching party. I had to really study them to see you hit the bullseye as always.

I have purchased several of those, "Before and After" books of Fort Worth and elsewhere. I always did think they could have done a much better job. Let's REALLY compare apples to apples. That is what you have really accomplished. I knew it was possible I just had never seen it done really well (Perfect in your case) until you stepped in to do it right. I love them. My wife thinks I am going to wear out my "back and forth" buttons on my laptop.

[cajunmike]

Phil, I agree with monee that I keep hitting the back and forward button. I keep trying to pick out what is gone. I noticed the Clyde Campbell Menswear store and remember shopping there. I also have a friend who spent years with them and was at the University Drive location. I went in this morning and did a search for Clyde Campbell and see that they had filed Chapter 11 back in October of 1986. Seems liked the other day.

Thanks again Phil for the photos.

[Brian Luenser]

Another shot at one I blew earlier. This is no Phil Phillips but I am putting it out there anyway. What does fill do, camp out on the street until the lighting is right? Cripes. It is trickier than it looks. (And most of my lenses are fixed (prime) and that makes the perspective impossible to get perfect some times . Well enough excuses. Here it is...

Apparently they couldn't read back then. All those cars are headed Northbound on Houston Street!

[Brian Luenser]

And my next victoms...

Main Street looking North. Again this is no Phil Phillips job, but take a look anyway. (Lighting was sure a problem for me... 2pm and already the Winterish sun was leaving the whole City in a shadow.) Phil would have been out there at 11:52am. I shot this pic today at 22mm. Probably need a 50mm.


Guessing the old photo is from the 40s. maybe 1950.

[John T Roberts]

Monee, even though your perspective and viewpoint is not right from Third and Houston, the old postcard shows a building that was obviously constructed in the late 1800's on the southeast corner. If the proper photo magic was done, you would see that the wall of the building where Sammy's and Zippy's is located would roughly match up to the cornice of the late 1800's building. I'm now sure that some of you have realized the old building is still standing. A new facade was put on it during the late 1950's, and has since been repainted and slightly revised since then.

[Phil Phillips]

Lancaster 1960s



2008. Deleted earlier shot so I could post this current one with Lancaster finished.
I can't duplicate the height from which original taken so this is only close.

[Phil Phillips]

Jernigan Construction photo 1931



2008. Again, can't duplicate the height of the original since the Jennings St. viaduct no longer exists. I could have moved 10 yards to the right on an abandoned bridge so the angle was closer to the original, but then I would have ignored two "No Trespassing" signs instead of just one. Don't tell TxDOT.

[Brian Luenser]

Here is my next old and new comparison. Burk Burnett Building. One of the finest structures in town, for sure. I believe there to be around century between these pictures. Again, not a Phil Phillips masterpiece but not a bad comparison. I do always wonder what all goes on in this building, at least above the bank. I wonder if it is all occupied and what kind of rents they get. Just curious.

[Phil Phillips]

Monee, I do like that building.

I have a bunch of comparison photos I want to try once the leaves are off the damn trees. One in particular is from the roof of the building that now houses O'Sheas Pub. The roof and above of that building is now a private parking garage, I believe for the Houston Street Condos. If any Forum member lives there and would be willing to take the trouble of getting me in the garage in a couple of months, I would greatly appreciate it. There are so many older photos from height that can't be duplicated but I think we can match this one.

[Brian Luenser]

Main Street looking North from Fifth Street. From one of my oldest post cards of Downtown Fort Worth. (1905)
I did not spend a ton of time lining these two puppies up for the simple reason that best I can tell, the County Courthouse is the only structure in both pictures. Even before the Burk Burnett was built. Old card has no cars. Doubt there was one in Fort Worth in 1905.

No doubt, the best comparisons, I am finding, are "before and afters" that have quite a bit of commonality. Either a huge structure (like Phil Phillips Post Office) or several less formidable structures. Otherwise, you might as well compare a FW scene to a scene in Chicago. This comparison is the same place on the planet. Just 103 years later. I had a Friend that was a teenager here then. He died in 1995. More on him later. Really. He was a treat and I have many stories he told me. He was the Tarrant Co. Treasurer for 40 years. (This was really a tax client of mine initially when I was a young CPA in public practice.) On to the pics...

[Brian Luenser]

Another comparison. Still on Main Street, but further South. And speaking of the JFK weekend and the Texas Hotel (Hilton now), it is included in these shots. I am guessing 1953 as the date of my original. And my new pic is from Sunday. Pretty good comparison, I think. I have communicated with Phil Phillips, the master of this thread, and not to give away all his secrets, but sure enough I believe he has the lens that was bred for this task. I think I am going to have to get the same lens to even the playing field. (That, plus I will have to get good) I think most old pictures were taken at around 40mm. And if you don't have the same focal length, nothing can make your pic a match. It is not a matter of getting closer or farther. The whole pic is in the wrong perspective with the wrong focal length. I have mostly prime lenses. (not zoom) and that doesn't work.

This comparison was at 22mm and it worked pretty well. But for now, forget the technical aspects of the comparison (I ain't Phil) and just look at the changes in 55 years.

[Fort Worthology]

I'd rather have those buildings back than General Worth Square, personally.

[cbellomy]

If the Moncrief Oil building were demolished, I wouldn't mind having the entire block surrounded by 8th, Main, 9th and Commerce made into a Kennedy memorial of some sort, as long as it's actually pedestrian-friendly in some way. The current General Worth Square is so cold and inhospitable that I don't know why anyone would want to spend any time there. And it really makes no sense for it to cross Main Street, as far as I can see.

[cbellomy]

I just noticed Brigham Young's Liquor. Somebody had a twisted sense of humor!

[Owen]

Been gigging the Mormons ever since the mid-80s, when TCU upset BYU in Fort Worth, and the stadium was invaded by black locusts, and not a seagull in sight!

[Phil Phillips]

I wasn't going to post this comparison because it can't be closely done but I found a couple of things of minor interest. The original location in front of the Art Museum is now planted with trees, so the shot has to be taken about 20 yds to the north and quite a bit lower. Also, the foreground trees have gotten considerably taller, blocking the lower portion of the skyline.

Two minor interesting things. First, I could crop the "now" shot at the top to match the original but it is amazing how much of the top of our current buildings would be missing. I left it like it is to illustrate how much higher the skyline has gotten. The second thing is that the original states in is 1952. If you look closely at 3 of the cars in the row closest to the Mr. White's Olds, specifically, the first, second and fourth from the left, I think those are several years newer than 1952. First and fourth from left appear to be either 55 or 56 Chevys. Maybe some of you car guys will recognize the makes and years and can comment. This may not really be the 1952 skyline and I'm not sure how to explain Mr. White's comments at the bottom. Only thought I have is that he made the photo of his NEW 1952 several years later. He has another, similar photo, taken from about the same spot, that shows his new 1955 Olds. That photo shows the rising skeleton of the CNB building and it's nearly topped out. Anyone know about what date that would make the second photo?



2008.

[Brian Luenser]

Jack's second photo should be 1956 if CNB was being topped out. There was not much hi-rise activity besides that in the 50's to date these pics, I don't think.

It is interesting when you are dating pictures to cars. I have gone off that cliff a few times. I am not sure that people were not more likely to drive older cars back then. I have seen pics that I date, say 1962, and then later find a 1967 in the pic somewhere.

Really the funny thing is that back then, cars were different from year to year. (I can spot a 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, etc. Chevy a mile away.) Can you tell the difference between a 2005 and a 2006 Chevy a mile away? Or a 2005 Mazda and a 2007 Mazda a mile away? Doubt it. I do think I see a 1955 car in the pic.

And I do think for comparison pics, panning up to see the tops of newer buildings is necessary to get a feel for the progress. It's all for fun. Ain't it?

[bailey]

Jack's second photo should be 1956 if CNB was being topped out. There was not much hi-rise activity besides that in the 50's to date these pics, I don't think.

It is interesting when you are dating pictures to cars. I have gone off that cliff a few times. I am not sure that people were not more likely to drive older cars back then. I have seen pics that I date, say 1962, and then later find a 1967 in the pic somewhere.

Really the funny thing is that back then, cars were different from year to year. (I can spot a 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, etc. Chevy a mile away.) Can you tell the difference between a 2005 and a 2006 Chevy a mile away? Or a 2005 Mazda and a 2007 Mazda a mile away? Doubt it. I do think I see a 1955 car in the pic.

And I do think for comparison pics, panning up to see the tops of newer buildings is necessary to get a feel for the progress. It's all for fun. Ain't it?

There is a turquoise and white 1956 Pontiac in the picture. We had one just like it that was blue and white. Your date of 1956 should be accurate based on the CNB and the cars. I also see a 1955 Chevrolet in the picture.

[Phil Phillips]

Good call, bailey. I zoomed in on the 4th car from the left and had previousy missed the small rear fins. Checked out photos of 56 Pontiac Chiefs and you are exactly right. Also, zoomed in on the license plates. They are yellow with black lettering. That was 1955, so that is a 1956 model that came out in Sept of 1955. If I remember correctly, everyone had to get new tags on April 1 (am I remembering correctly?), so this photo is probably taken between Sept 1955 and April 1 1956 but not in the winter months since there are leaves on the trees. The 1954 and 1956 tags were black with yellow lettering and the 1957 tags were white with black lettering.

[bailey]

Good call, bailey. I zoomed in on the 4th car from the left and had previousy missed the small rear fins. Checked out photos of 56 Pontiac Chiefs and you are exactly right. Also, zoomed in on the license plates. They are yellow with black lettering. That was 1955, so that is a 1956 model that came out in Sept of 1955. If I remember correctly, everyone had to get new tags on April 1 (am I remembering correctly?), so this photo is probably taken between Sept 1955 and April 1 1956. The 1954 and 1956 tags were black with yellow lettering and the 1957 tags were white with black lettering.

I believe that is a 1956 Buick at the end of the line to the left of the 1955 Chevrolet. On the right side of that line is a 1955 Plymouth. I was always fascinated by cars back then and by the age of 6 I could tell you what every car on the road was and the year. Back then, all new models cars were kept out of sight until the same day in September when they were released for sale. The dealers could not show them or sell them before that date. The models changed radically every year so it was easy for the most part to identify them. Back then, the license plates were actually replaced every year as you noted and I believe your date is correct. I remember the lines we had to wait in to get plates.

[Phil Phillips]

Looking north on Main at about 9th - 1920s.



2008. As you can tell from the relative heights of the tall buildings, the original was taken further south. Unfortunately, the Convention Center now occupies that space, so this is only close.

[cbellomy]

Phil, I think that old photo was taken from roughly Main & 10th... so, yes, if you were to take that photo today, the result would be a wonderfully detailed study of the northern section of the FWCC Arena seating bowl.

[Phil Phillips]

Looking west on Camp Bowie, 1927, with gravel median and tracks.



2008

[Brian Luenser]

Today's comparisons at too good for sure.

The picture looking North on main is pretty similar to my set a few weeks ago. As my old pic was the 50s and this in the 20s, wish we had them all in a row. Really three different times and pictures from the same spot.

Comparisons from Camp Bowie are just incredible. I have to laugh however, as I thought those street lights were put up in the 90s from some City Retro kit. (Part #2481848) Did not know they were authentic.

[cajunmike]

Are those the original street lights or retros? I see the Arlington Heights Masonic Lodge. A number of years back when I was reviewing some documents in the archives of Fort Worth Masonic Lodge #148 of which I am a member, I reviewed some loan papers that were granted to pay for the building of the Arlington Heights Lodge. The orgianal Fort Worth Lodge was charted in 1855 and currently resides in the Masonic Temple building at Lancaster and Henderson.

One of Fort Worth's founding father's and leaders John Peter Smith was the first secretary of Fort Worth Lodge. I also (very carefully) reviewed his handwritten minutes from some of the lodge meetings in the 1850's.

[Phil Phillips]

I'm far from an expert, but at least the poles appear original. It seems unlikely that if, over the years, the lights were completely removed, the City would go to the trouble and expense to not only replicate the lights but reinstall in their exact location. The only poles that have been moved are those next to a cut-in left turn lane. Those have been moved a bit to the middle of the median. I do note that the glass globes may have been replaced since the first globe from the right has been turned from its orientation in the original photo but the second from the right appears to be oriented the same. Maybe John has some info on this.

[cajunmike]

If they are not the orginal they sure did a great job with a replica. Thanks for the photos !

[djold1]

Off topic...

In the 1927 Camp Bowie picture look at the very simple way that the untensioned overhead pickup wires for the double track streetcar line are configured. Simple unobtrusive poles with simple guyed cross arms. The inside wires are probably to feed the streetlights. Simple gravel medians that could easily be grass, very much like the New Orleans car line.

Today the Streetcar Comittee is quoting 20 to 40 million dollars per mile to construct new streetcar lines and populate them. And you can bet that the experts will reccomend elaborate tensioned catenary construction with bow or pantograph collectors instead of simple trolley poles and sliders. Noises are being made about designing simple unobtrusive overhead power lines but I personally think that it will end up being far more elaborate than a streetcar with a maximum speed of 35 mph would require.

If Fort Worth is to have even the ill conceived micro streetcar system that is proposed, it would be nice to think that some of the proven lessions from the past might be employed instead of concentrating on swoopy exterior design that will become dated far too soon into the life of the vehicle.

Wouldn't also be nice to see if FW could look at the way current streetcar systems are being built and just say: No. We can do this just as well for for much less money and make if more efficent and more useful to the potential rider.

It is to dream..

[Phil Phillips]

Looking at aerial photos from various years back to 1963, the lights are in their current positions, so I think they are original. There is a great, free site to look at exact aerial photo comparisons, some back to the 50s. If it doesn't violate any rules of this site, I will post it.

[Fort Worthology]

Today the Streetcar Comittee is quoting 20 to 40 million dollars per mile to construct new streetcar lines and populate them. And you can bet that the experts will reccomend elaborate tensioned catenary construction with bow or pantograph collectors instead of simple trolley poles and sliders. Noises are being made about designing simple unobtrusive overhead power lines but I personally think that it will end up being far more elaborate than a streetcar with a maximum speed of 35 mph would require.

Looks perfectly simple to me.

[mmiller2002]

The scale of the buildings along Camp Bowie today looks very similar to the old 1927 picture. I sure hope we do not get a bunch of urban buildings pushing up against the street along the boulevard (like that bank building and goofy color blocked building/wall down near the ginger man). I like the openess of the boulevard.

[Fort Worthology]

The scale of the buildings along Camp Bowie today looks very similar to the old 1927 picture. I sure hope we do not get a bunch of urban buildings pushing up against the street along the boulevard (like that bank building and goofy color blocked building/wall down near the ginger man). I like the openess of the boulevard.

I hope I can see some *actual* urban buildings on Camp Bowie. The two examples you provided - the creamy white weird-looking bank and the wall across from the Ginger Man - are *not* good examples of urban buildings. They are both terrible in their own ways. The new office building near the UNT Health Science Center would have been a fantastic example had the owners gone with the architect's wishes and built the building right up on the sidewalk like it should have been.

Camp Bowie needs good street space definition with *real* urban buildings, not the cruddy bank or blank walled thing.

[mmiller2002]

I hope I can see some *actual* urban buildings on Camp Bowie. The two examples you provided - the creamy white weird-looking bank and the wall across from the Ginger Man - are *not* good examples of urban buildings. They are both terrible in their own ways. The new office building near the UNT Health Science Center would have been a fantastic example had the owners gone with the architect's wishes and built the building right up on the sidewalk like it should have been.

Camp Bowie needs good street space definition with *real* urban buildings, not the cruddy bank or blank walled thing.

Sorry, I was talking about that office building across from CVS, not the park cities bank building (which I don't like there either). To me, even though they put a small lot in front, the office bldg is too big and close to CB. I like the low scale old buildings along CB, like the one with Winslow's, The Original, Bluebonnet Bakery, etc. Don't want it to become a canyon like 7th is going to become. Downtowns are great for that shady canyon-like feel.

[Phil Phillips]

If this violates the rules, I am sorry. A wonderful site to compare old and new aerial photos is www.historicaerials.com. Takes a bit of patience to learn how to navigate, but worth it. Hint: click on the task you want before you click on the map (zoom in, zoom out, pan, etc.)

[Phil Phillips]

I substituted a new photo in Post #17 for the "now" photo. This one better represents the angle of the original photo than the first one I took.