Compare new and old Photos
#52
Posted 11 November 2008 - 07:16 PM
#53
Posted 11 November 2008 - 08:02 PM
#54
Posted 11 November 2008 - 09:04 PM
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.
#55
Posted 11 November 2008 - 09:33 PM
--
Kara B.
#56
Posted 11 November 2008 - 09:42 PM
#57
Posted 11 November 2008 - 10:15 PM
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.
#58
Posted 11 November 2008 - 11:34 PM
#59
Posted 12 November 2008 - 03:45 PM
John Briggs
FTW
#60
Posted 12 November 2008 - 06:09 PM
This photo is very interesting, showing tracks where the Post Office now stands and the old T&P terminal.
Rail Yard
#61
Posted 14 November 2008 - 06:53 PM
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.
#62
Posted 14 November 2008 - 08:47 PM
--
Kara B.
#63
Posted 15 November 2008 - 01:13 PM
#64
Posted 15 November 2008 - 06:04 PM
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.
#65
Posted 15 November 2008 - 06:29 PM
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.
#66
Posted 16 November 2008 - 09:38 AM
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.
#67
Posted 16 November 2008 - 10:07 AM
Thanks again Phil for the photos.
#68
Posted 16 November 2008 - 05:05 PM
Apparently they couldn't read back then. All those cars are headed Northbound on Houston Street!
#69
Posted 16 November 2008 - 07:48 PM
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.
#70
Posted 17 November 2008 - 09:27 PM
#71
Posted 19 November 2008 - 02:24 PM
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.
#72
Posted 19 November 2008 - 02:40 PM
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.
#73
Posted 21 November 2008 - 09:23 PM
#74
Posted 21 November 2008 - 09:55 PM
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.
#75
Posted 22 November 2008 - 04:12 PM
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...
#76
Posted 23 November 2008 - 09:48 PM
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.
#77
Posted 24 November 2008 - 12:09 PM
--
Kara B.
#78
Posted 24 November 2008 - 02:54 PM
#79
Posted 24 November 2008 - 02:57 PM
#80
Posted 24 November 2008 - 03:27 PM
#81
Posted 24 November 2008 - 03:48 PM
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.
#82
Posted 24 November 2008 - 05:25 PM
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?
#83
Posted 24 November 2008 - 05:35 PM
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.
#84
Posted 24 November 2008 - 07:16 PM
#85
Posted 24 November 2008 - 09:38 PM
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.
#86
Posted 05 December 2008 - 11:07 AM
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.
#87
Posted 05 December 2008 - 11:38 AM
#88
Posted 05 December 2008 - 01:47 PM
Looking west on Camp Bowie, 1927, with gravel median and tracks.
2008
- txbornviking likes this
#89
Posted 05 December 2008 - 04:44 PM
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.
#90
Posted 05 December 2008 - 07:00 PM
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.
#91
Posted 05 December 2008 - 07:21 PM
#92
Posted 05 December 2008 - 07:42 PM
#93
Posted 05 December 2008 - 07:52 PM
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..
Pete Charlton
The Fort Worth Gazette blog
The Lost Antique Maps of Fort Worth on CDROM
Website: Antique Maps of Texas
Large format reproductions of original antique and vintage Texas & southwestern maps
#94
Posted 05 December 2008 - 08:19 PM
#95
Posted 10 December 2008 - 11:07 AM
Looks perfectly simple to me.
--
Kara B.
#96
Posted 10 December 2008 - 12:59 PM
#97
Posted 10 December 2008 - 01:09 PM
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.
--
Kara B.
#98
Posted 10 December 2008 - 01:20 PM
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.
#99
Posted 11 December 2008 - 07:55 PM
#100
Posted 13 January 2009 - 02:19 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users