Vintage FW Skyline Photos
#1
Posted 08 February 2006 - 07:51 PM
- blurbeddy and IncitAntand like this
#2
Posted 08 February 2006 - 11:32 PM
Great vintage photo johnlp!
#3
Posted 09 February 2006 - 09:54 AM
Ahh.....Landmark Tower in all it's glory! I guess that's what it'll look like with all the other past demolished buildings of the past in Skyscraper Heaven.
Great vintage photo johnlp!
Thanks, It's the only pic I have that shows the the green neon CNB letters. As I recall, that was the first thing to stop working, then it stopped revolving, then it stop keeping accurate time, then it stop keeping time at all!
I never liked the Big E signs that replaced the CNB letters. It was just never the same.
Does anyone know what was in the center top of the clock, it looks like a ball. Was that part of the night time lights (a aviatyion becon or something)?
John
#4
Posted 10 February 2006 - 08:23 AM
I wish there was some sort of DT regulation that said you have to light up any building over 10 stories at night. Even it it's just plain flood lights pointed up on the building. Well, I might make an exception for the SBC building... The only light that should ever be pointed at that light is a high powered laser beam - one strong enough to bring it down! That is the ugliest building I've ever seen that isn't abandoned.
Hey - maybe there should be a contest on the forum to find and post a pic of buildings that ARE UGLIER than the SBC building... LOL
#5
Posted 10 February 2006 - 10:03 AM
Even Burnett Plaza already has lights out and didn't they just take a couple of months to repair all the lights... Didn't take long for them to go out again!
FYI - based on my understanding, Burnett Plaza took the lights down to do 'maintenance' on the concrete facade. They may have replaced some of the lights, but it was not the reason for taking them down.
#6
Posted 10 February 2006 - 09:57 PM
On outlining buildings, I have heard rumor that one of the downtown buildings plans to reinstall the outlining lights soon. The reinstallation will involve an upgrade in technology to eliminate the individual lights and replace them with LED versions. Hopefully, I will have more later.
John, I think you have two of the events reversed on the CNB clock. I'm almost sure that it stopped revolving before the letters were out. My recollections have it that it stopped revolving in 1978. The CNB letters were turned off when the bank moved out in 1982. The lighted object on top of the clock was an aviation beacon. I also didn't like the Big E sign, which was illuminated like a billboard. The original neon CNB letters should have been replaced with a neon Big E.
Another note about the lighting. Look how many buildings had illuminated signs on top! In addition to the Continental National Bank, the Commerce Building had the red and blue neon SLC weather forecasting sign. Transport Life had three neon signs on it. Continental Life ran on the roof on both the east and south sides. The Conoco brand logo was on the roof. The 7 story neon Trans American Life sign could be seen on the corner of the Aviation Building and another sign was spread across the east side of the building. Those were the days.
#7
Posted 11 February 2006 - 01:41 AM
www.iheartfw.com
#8
Posted 11 February 2006 - 07:55 AM
A forum member has suggested that I develop a page that lists each address with each current building name and all of its former names in order to have some sort of record of what was there and what is currently at each location.
#9
Posted 11 February 2006 - 10:51 AM
MDALTON sent this to me to post. I will let him post his info. It looks to be taken from the MA! I've never seen it before. Awesome view of the Hollywood Theatre!
Thanks for sharing!
Now THIS is what I'm talkin' about!
Keep 'em comming guys!
John
#10
Posted 11 February 2006 - 11:08 AM
#11
Posted 11 February 2006 - 11:44 AM
PHS Class of 84 (geez that makes me feel old)! LOL
My niece is a Senior this year. She is a fourth generation Paschal student. My Grandfather's Principal WAS RL Paschal!
#12
Posted 11 February 2006 - 08:38 PM
I'm also a Paschal graduate. I'm from the Class of '76 and there are two others from my class here, as well as Panthers from other years.
#13
Posted 12 February 2006 - 01:56 PM
#14
Posted 12 February 2006 - 08:05 PM
CHECK THIS PIC OUT!
MDALTON sent this to me to post. I will let him post his info. It looks to be taken from the MA! I've never seen it before. Awesome view of the Hollywood Theatre!
Thanks for sharing!
Now THIS is what I'm talkin' about!
Keep 'em comming guys!
John
Hmm...could be the source for this postcard I posted in my postcards thread:
--
Kara B.
#15
Posted 13 February 2006 - 03:13 PM
Wow Atomic, I think you are right! Good eye!
#16
Posted 13 February 2006 - 03:31 PM
Wow Atomic, I think you are right! Good eye!
Heh - excellent Photoshopping! How nifty.
Now, my question - was the Neil P. Anderson building ever that color? I figured the deep red w/ white corner in my postcard was one of those typical postcard embellishments, but you can see a distinct different shade to the corner in the photograph, too. Very different from the current look of the building.
--
Kara B.
#17
Posted 13 February 2006 - 03:46 PM
I think the color of the Neil P. Anderson is now as it was then.
Just IMHO!
#18
Posted 13 February 2006 - 08:58 PM
#19
Posted 15 February 2006 - 10:03 AM
Clerly this predates the SLC / WSL forcast sign. When did that one go up I wonder?
#20
Posted 15 February 2006 - 11:42 AM
Postcard illustrators used a lot of artistic license. Many of them did not live in the town where the photograph was taken, so they did the best they could. This pretty much explains the wrong colors painted on the buildings. The Neil P. Anderson Building has not changed color, other than natural fading of the brick over time and the possibility of infrequent cleanings.
You're right - as I was taking photos of the Neil P. the other day, I noticed that there's still a different coloration to the corner, and it makes sense that the building's exterior would be noticeably higher contrast back in the day, before the effects of age and weathering, without it being an actual different color.
--
Kara B.
#21
Posted 15 February 2006 - 12:01 PM
I think the SLC/WSL sign on the Commerce Building went up in 1966. I might be off a year or two, but I'm not too far off in remembering when it was erected.
#22
Posted 18 February 2006 - 09:47 AM
There is a lot of interest in this photo. Some of it can be made out in the version you have posted.
In the photo the Federal building is under construction in the mid-foreground. The latest layer of hideousness is going up atop the SBC building. I guess it was the AT&T building then. The corner of the Star-Telegram that is visible reveals the vertical-reading electric sign on the corner of the building, and the porch-like contraption that's on the corner of the building these days is not present. East across Taylor Street from the S-T, the Worth Hotel still stands.
Above and around the Electric Company building visible just this side of the courthouse are Striplings, Monnigs, and, I believe, Leonard's. Big Fort Worth retailers, the last of which seems to be sputtering to oblivion.
City hall is not present, but the old deco library is.
The photo is dated April 8, 1965.
Because of color positions and such, the photo ran in the paper in black and white. The original is in color.
In some ways this photo actually supports my idea that the SLC sign was finished around 1966. If you look at old photographs of the Commerce Building, there was an Art Deco/Gothic cooling tower enclosure constructed out out concrete on the roof. In order to put the SLC sign on the building, this enclosure had to be removed. As you can see from the 1965 photo, it was not present in the picture.
As for the SBC building, this was not the latest layer of hideousness. That occurred six years later in 1971. These additions were for two floors on the 1958 building and the 1899/1920/1926 building along with a 4 story addition to the 1949 building.
#23
Posted 18 February 2006 - 10:28 AM
In some ways this photo actually supports my idea that the SLC sign was finished around 1966. If you look at old photographs of the Commerce Building, there was an Art Deco/Gothic cooling tower enclosure constructed out out concrete on the roof. In order to put the SLC sign on the building, this enclosure had to be removed. As you can see from the 1965 photo, it was not present in the picture.
As for the SBC building, this was not the latest layer of hideousness. That occurred six years later in 1971. These additions were for two floors on the 1958 building and the 1899/1920/1926 building along with a 4 story addition to the 1949 building.
Is this the cooling tower platform?
Below is a later photo I took in 1987 in my want-to-be W.D. Smith days when I was taking photography in college. One of the last photos of the signs in their fading glory (the WSL forcast sign was unreadable becasue most of the lights had burned out and then there was the BILLBOARD from HELL Big E sign!).
Still, I wish they were back!
#24
Posted 18 February 2006 - 10:43 AM
#25
Posted 18 February 2006 - 04:29 PM
Also - there is something I have been rather curious about. In a modern office building, the floors are built basically as empty shells and are finished out once a tenant moves in. Once the tenant moves out, the walls and such can be easily demolished or reconfigured to meet the needs of the next tennant. To what degree, if any, was that the case with 1920s era office buildings? Were they pretty much built with a floor plan on each floor? If I were to walk around the upper floors of the Sinclair, Burk Burnett or The Fair/Commerce buildings, would I basically be walking through a decades old configuration - or have those floors probably been gutted out and reconfigured many times?
One more question - how much of the building did The Fair department store take up other than the lower floor? Did the store and its associated offices take up the entire building? Or was it always primarily an office building and simply took the name of its anchor downstairs tennant?
I have always thought that it was one of the nicer buildings in downtown.
#26
Posted 18 February 2006 - 04:32 PM
Now, my question - was the Neil P. Anderson building ever that color? I figured the deep red w/ white corner in my postcard was one of those typical postcard embellishments, but you can see a distinct different shade to the corner in the photograph, too. Very different from the current look of the building.
I have an old postcard of the Blackstone Hotel and the building is illustrated as having a gray exterior. Sometimes the colors on those old cards was just WAY off.
#27
Posted 18 February 2006 - 05:12 PM
Does anyone have knowledge how well The Fair/Commerce Building performs from a commercial standpoint as an office building? Is most of the space in it leased or are there lots of abandoned floors? Is there any real danger that the building might be closed down like the Transport Life Building and perhaps eventually be at risk?
I don't know. I do have a contact there, but I never have been able to get much information or cooperation. I mentioned to them about lighting the top of the building and pretty much got a cold shoulder.
Also - there is something I have been rather curious about. In a modern office building, the floors are built basically as empty shells and are finished out once a tenant moves in. Once the tenant moves out, the walls and such can be easily demolished or reconfigured to meet the needs of the next tenant. To what degree, if any, was that the case with 1920s era office buildings? Were they pretty much built with a floor plan on each floor? If I were to walk around the upper floors of the Sinclair, Burk Burnett or The Fair/Commerce buildings, would I basically be walking through a decades old configuration - or have those floors probably been gutted out and reconfigured many times?
I can't say exactly how they were configured in the 1920's and 30's. I don't know if the buildings were built with all of the walls between spaces, or they were finished to the tenant's needs. I do know that they were more permanent construction. All of the walls in these old buildings were originally metal lath and plaster. These type of walls are much harder to remove and rebuild, but it can be done. In many of the buildings that I have walked through, these walls are still in place. The tenants move in as is, or they modify their business to fit the floor plan. I think if you walked through the floors of the older buildings, you would find that the floors are mixed. Many of the floors inside the Burk Burnett Building have their original layout. Inside the Sinclair, most floors are original, yet a few have been demolished and new layouts have been put inside. I can't really remember about the Commerce Building.
One more question - how much of the building did The Fair department store take up other than the lower floor? Did the store and its associated offices take up the entire building? Or was it always primarily an office building and simply took the name of its anchor downstairs tennant?
I have always thought that it was one of the nicer buildings in downtown.
According to the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, The Fair Department Store occupied Levels 1 thru 6 and the basement for merchandising. The use of floors 7 thru 19 were for offices. However, the Sanborn Maps do not indicate how much of that office space The Fair used for their operations. My guess is about 1/2 of the building was occupied by The Fair and the rest was lease space. I also think they built it, so they could easily name it after their store.
I agree with you, it is one of the nicer buildings. Maybe XTO's desire to improve the neighborhood might rub off on the current owners and they will restore the base.
#28
Posted 18 February 2006 - 06:31 PM
I agree with you, it is one of the nicer buildings. Maybe XTO's desire to improve the neighborhood might rub off on the current owners and they will restore the base.
That current base is indeed pretty grotesque - especially compared with the building's upper floors. Perhaps XTO will buy the building and add it to their collection. Let's hope they make tons of money so that they could do so. If it no longer makes sense for the building to be an office building, it looks to me like it would be perfect as a hotel or apartments as the building floor plan is a rather narrow rectangle.
Of course, what would be neat is if a department store would go back in on the ground floor. But, since something like that is pure fantasy, I might just as well wish that the department store only stocked reproduction 1930s merchandise - which, of course, would be really neat.
#29
Posted 18 February 2006 - 06:35 PM
#30
Posted 18 February 2006 - 08:54 PM
This might have a place already but I thought it would be fun to have a section just for vintage Ft. Worth skyline photos. I'll start with one of my favorites. I have others that I need to scan.
Nice pic, John. I have several in THE WAY WE WERE old photo section.
Have you checked them out?
Jack
#31
Posted 18 February 2006 - 09:09 PM
CHECK THIS PIC OUT!
MDALTON sent this to me to post. I will let him post his info. It looks to be taken from the MA! I've never seen it before. Awesome view of the Hollywood Theatre!
Thanks for sharing!
Now THIS is what I'm talkin' about!
Keep 'em comming guys!
John
Great photo, John. I will be in touch about using it on a WAY WE WERE page!
Thanks.
Jack
#32
Posted 18 February 2006 - 09:19 PM
There is a lot of interest in this photo. Some of it can be made out in the version you have posted.
In the photo the Federal building is under construction in the mid-foreground. The latest layer of hideousness is going up atop the SBC building. I guess it was the AT&T building then. The corner of the Star-Telegram that is visible reveals the vertical-reading electric sign on the corner of the building, and the porch-like contraption that's on the corner of the building these days is not present. East across Taylor Street from the S-T, the Worth Hotel still stands.
Above and around the Electric Company building visible just this side of the courthouse are Striplings, Monnigs, and, I believe, Leonard's. Big Fort Worth retailers, the last of which seems to be sputtering to oblivion.
City hall is not present, but the old deco library is.
The photo is dated April 8, 1965.
Because of color positions and such, the photo ran in the paper in black and white. The original is in color.
In some ways this photo actually supports my idea that the SLC sign was finished around 1966. If you look at old photographs of the Commerce Building, there was an Art Deco/Gothic cooling tower enclosure constructed out out concrete on the roof. In order to put the SLC sign on the building, this enclosure had to be removed. As you can see from the 1965 photo, it was not present in the picture.
As for the SBC building, this was not the latest layer of hideousness. That occurred six years later in 1971. These additions were for two floors on the 1958 building and the 1899/1920/1926 building along with a 4 story addition to the 1949 building.
John...I have many photos of the SBC building under construction in 1971 that I will be posting
in THE WAY WE WERE.
Jack
#33
Posted 18 February 2006 - 09:25 PM
Does anyone have knowledge how well The Fair/Commerce Building performs from a commercial standpoint as an office building? Is most of the space in it leased or are there lots of abandoned floors? Is there any real danger that the building might be closed down like the Transport Life Building and perhaps eventually be at risk?
Also - there is something I have been rather curious about. In a modern office building, the floors are built basically as empty shells and are finished out once a tenant moves in. Once the tenant moves out, the walls and such can be easily demolished or reconfigured to meet the needs of the next tennant. To what degree, if any, was that the case with 1920s era office buildings? Were they pretty much built with a floor plan on each floor? If I were to walk around the upper floors of the Sinclair, Burk Burnett or The Fair/Commerce buildings, would I basically be walking through a decades old configuration - or have those floors probably been gutted out and reconfigured many times?
One more question - how much of the building did The Fair department store take up other than the lower floor? Did the store and its associated offices take up the entire building? Or was it always primarily an office building and simply took the name of its anchor downstairs tennant?
I have always thought that it was one of the nicer buildings in downtown.
The Fair Store was one of my favorites because it was near the movie
theaters, and had a great book department.
You architect types will appreciate this: the first six or 8 floors of the building
HAD A SEPARATE ELEVATOR SYSTEM. Probably still there! The building lobby
elevators went to the upper floors, and the store elevators went to the lower
floors. Does anyone know whether it still has the separate elevators?
Jack
#34
Posted 18 February 2006 - 09:32 PM
The Fair Store was one of my favorites because it was near the movie
theaters, and had a great book department.
You architect types will appreciate this: the first six or 8 floors of the building
HAD A SEPARATE ELEVATOR SYSTEM. Probably still there! The building lobby
elevators went to the upper floors, and the store elevators went to the lower
floors. Does anyone know whether it still has the separate elevators?
Jack
That's neat.
Do you recall what the office portion elevator lobby looked like? Was it really grand? My guess is it was probably destoryed for the modern lobby. What was the department store portion itself like in terms of its architectural and decorative elements?
#35
Posted 18 February 2006 - 09:43 PM
The Fair Store was one of my favorites because it was near the movie
theaters, and had a great book department.
You architect types will appreciate this: the first six or 8 floors of the building
HAD A SEPARATE ELEVATOR SYSTEM. Probably still there! The building lobby
elevators went to the upper floors, and the store elevators went to the lower
floors. Does anyone know whether it still has the separate elevators?
Jack
That's neat.
Do you recall what the office portion elevator lobby looked like? Was it really grand? My guess is it was probably destoryed for the modern lobby. What was the department store portion itself like in terms of its architectural and decorative elements?
The Fair ground floor was TYPICAL department store appearance of the era. The book department
was on the ground floor just to the left of the Throckmorton entrance. General merchandise was
on the lowest floors, and upper floors were mostly ladies wear. The store elevators were on the
west wall, backed up to the building lobby. A door inside the store on the Seventh Street side
led into the building lobby. The last time I was in the building years ago, the building lobby led
into the parking garage, and I assume it still does. I may have a photo somewhere I took inside
the store when I was testing a new camera in the 50s in low light conditions.
Jack
#36
Posted 18 February 2006 - 10:08 PM
My email address s jlpjr@sbcglobal.net or john@KXOL1360.com
John
#37
Posted 19 February 2006 - 05:54 PM
Sorry, John, I guess I was trying to be too fancy. It was just my first post. I tried to use the present tense as of the time the photo was taken. As in ". . .the Worth Hotel still stands." and ". . .city hall is not present."
Still, thanks for letting us know the guilty decade when the latest layer of hideousness actually went on.
#38
Posted 20 February 2006 - 07:50 PM
#39
Posted 20 February 2006 - 07:56 PM
#40
Posted 20 February 2006 - 10:33 PM
--
Kara B.
#41
Posted 21 February 2006 - 10:17 AM
#42
Posted 21 February 2006 - 11:00 AM
I too love this photo. I was wondering if the trees on the extreme right side is the location of the Rotary Park?
Yes...the trees at the right edge were in Rotary Park. Here is an old postcard
of Seventh at Summit. The building in the trees was the Park Department
offices.
Jack
Attached Files
#43
Posted 21 February 2006 - 02:33 PM
#44
Posted 21 February 2006 - 02:43 PM
I too love this photo. I was wondering if the trees on the extreme right side is the location of the Rotary Park?
Yes...the trees at the right edge were in Rotary Park. Here is an old postcard
of Seventh at Summit. The building in the trees was the Park Department
offices.
Jack
Jack,
Give me some perspective, here. In the post card, what direction are we seeing? Are we looking west on 7th from Summit?
John
#45
Posted 21 February 2006 - 03:01 PM
I thought Rotary Park was north of 5th Street and west of Summit. It seems to me that the trees at the right of the photo are south of 7th Street where the 7-Eleven is now. Am I wrong, or is the park gone now?
You are right and wrong!
The original Rotary Park was at Seventh and Summit.
There was a stone marker on the corner with the Rotary gear on top.
When the city closed and sold the park after establishing new park
department headquarters, they designated a "new" Rotary Park
where you mention and relocated the original stone marker there.
It is hardly a park at all...just an grass island strip between two roadways.
I guess they did it to appease the Rotarians.
Jack
#46
Posted 21 February 2006 - 03:06 PM
I too love this photo. I was wondering if the trees on the extreme right side is the location of the Rotary Park?
Yes...the trees at the right edge were in Rotary Park. Here is an old postcard
of Seventh at Summit. The building in the trees was the Park Department
offices.
Jack
Jack,
Give me some perspective, here. In the post card, what direction are we seeing? Are we looking west on 7th from Summit?
John
John...the street running south into the distance at top is Summit. The street
at bottom is Seventh, with east to the left and west to the right. On the corner
now is the FANCY new 7-11 store.
Next door to the east was Pangburn Candy Company. Across Summit to
the west was the Rotary Apartments building.
Jack
#47
Posted 21 February 2006 - 09:57 PM
#49
Posted 21 February 2006 - 10:19 PM
#50
Posted 21 February 2006 - 10:23 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users