Yeah, 1920's OTR and modern day OTR seem to have a lot in common building wise.  Very cool picture.

 

 

 

Yes, the density of the West End was  simply amazing -- all of it gone, thanks to the construction of I-75 accompanied by the forced relocation of hundreds of residents.  This mass destruction of both property and lives is a sad and brutal chapter in Cincinnati history.  For shame!

Yeah, we all are familiar with the West End areils, but was interesting is the east side of downtown, which we dont see much.  This would be that railroad complex at the end of Reading Road and I guess Eggleston Avenue shooting down to the river.  Fascinating. 

 

 

Its hard to look at that image without feeling sick to my stomach. To go back in time... if only for a day.

What we all would give to still have that!  That is an amazing picture.

Amazing! The only reason there is so much historic architecture in Cincinnati today is because there was so much more to begin with. A comparison with the famous 1840's panoramic photo taken of the riverfront (what was then the entire city) compared with what remains today reveals an isolated survivor or two. But such is the historic evolution of cities; 10 feet or more below the streets of modern London are the ancient remains of Roman era Londinium. Arguably, in fewer than 100 years, the aerial view of downtown Cincinnati visible today will be largely obliterated unless our planned-obsolesence, throw-away society changes its wasteful ways. There's far more of 1920's and earlier Cincinnati buried in local landfills than remains standing. Without the advent of aerial photography in the early 20th century, we probably wouldn't have a clue-but the sobering photographic evidence is there for all to see and consider. Sometimes a picture truly is worth a thousand words.

That is sickening.

 

Lesser crimes were committed west of downtown Dayton to the river and the southeast side downtown Cleveland -- each very dense, mixed-use neighborhoods obliterated by highways and ramps in the name of progress.

 

The only wholesale destruction that compares is what was done to some European cities during World War II, but many weren't so thoroughly destroyed as Cincinnati's West End.

So I guess that is the CCW in the lower left? What a huge building by those days standards.

 

Breathtaking density, though. Looking closely there are some familiar structures on 4th street. This also gives me an image of the pubic landing that I really hadn't appreciated before. It is a BIG open space juxtaposed against it surroundings!

 

Also, I wonder what the large open (looks demolished) area is near the Central Parkway turn.

 

Also, what is the huge white structure on the south side of Central between Main and Sycamore?

A quick observation: the only two allowances for automobiles (the beginning of the end, IMHO) that I can see are the cleared area along the riverfront, and the overpass at what looks like 8th/Gilbert over what is now Eggleston. Otherwise, I don't see any broad clearings for parking lots, nor for that matter, many cars on the streets. Absolutely fascinating shot.

 

For all the loss, it's worth remembering how unsanitary much of this current view was. There were probably few indoor commodes during this time, and the streets (and river, esp) were likely pretty filthy. Same for the air. I don't necessarily mourn the loss of individual buildings, but rather intimate fabric that was gutted for automobiles and later interstates.

WOW! How much of that density has been lost to 'urban renewal'? Well, at least the Banks and stadiums are better than the railroad yards, right? ;)

 

For all the loss, it's worth remembering how unsanitary much of this current view was. There were probably few indoor commodes during this time, and the streets (and river, esp) were likely pretty filthy. Same for the air. I don't necessarily mourn the loss of individual buildings, but rather intimate fabric that was gutted for automobiles and later interstates.

 

Good Points. In the 1870's, sensationalist newspaper writer Lafcadio Hearn wrote stomach-turning accounts about the virulent, crime-infested slums located near the riverfront that were derisively called Bucktown, Rats Row, and Sausage Row. It was a ramshackle district of flop-houses, cheap hotels, brothels, opium dens, gambling establishments, and constant violence. This was where those residents of Cincinnati on the fringes of society lived in the 19th century. Few locals mourned the loss of these derelict slums when they were cleared out in the first decades of the 20th century. Many of these former riverfront slum residents immediately fled to the poorer areas of the West End which, in turn, quickly acquired a similar negative reputation with increasing calls for eradication of the "blight" by local business leaders who feared the growing impoverished population was encroaching on the downtown. Predictably, much of the West End and former neighborhoods like Kenyon-Barr were wholesale bulldozed for the Queensgate development, new public housing projects, and Union Station. (still later, the I-75 Freeway construction) These displaced poor folks had to relocate yet again to other neighborhoods and this cycle of displacement has been repeated and is seemingly never-ending. The best urban policy solution is obviously one that addresses the social issues stemming from generational cycles of chronic poverty, not trying to bulldoze the problem away.

That photo appears to have been taken in 1927 or 1928.  Central Parkway is under construction.  Would have been a great photo for my book...thanks for your tardiness Chris!

Thank Paradox24, not me! :D

This is amazing, but totally depressing.

It almost brings tears to your eyes to think about how all that great building stock was wiped out.  The construction of the interstates really messed up a good thing.

Pictures like these really fascinate/piss me off. Such an awesome picture!

That's breath taking!!

It's like Cleveland's E.4th street, but everywhere!!

I know the car is a big part of why and the floods of the 1890s, 1910s, and especially 1937 also did major damage in many of these areas, but there is a deeper why question which is why did that city of Cincinnati cease to exist basically by 1950 or even earlier?

Truly sad.  Every older American city has wiped out a significant portion of their urban fabric in the automobile age.  There's no doubt that most of these historic dense districts would be the most prized neighborhoods today if they hadn't been leveled in the name of "progress."  St. Louis' Mill Creek Valley suffered the same exact fate.  You don't know what you got till it's gone.

Thats how a city should look. I think America fucked itself over in the long run. I love that picture, its so painful.

Amazing how much was lost... just amazing.

I've really had a major change of heart regarding the whole urban living thing lately.  I don't recall if I've said this before, but I currently live in West Chester, and until recently I was a diehard fan of the suburbs and could not understand the whole mindset of urban enthusiasts.  Oh, I've always loved skyscrapers, and that was the main reason I joined this site.  But something suddenly changed within me, and I've done a complete 180-degree change in my attitude about how I view cities and urban life, and I now LOVE all this stuff. (And I'm a middle-aged fart! LOL!)  I really want to get out of the suburbs and start a new life in a downtown/urban environment, and I've recently been so drawn to what I see in New York City - particularly areas such as Greenwich Village, Chelsea, Midtown Manhattan, etc.  When I saw this photo, I couldn't help but think of those areas.  They are such active, popular areas in NYC.

That's wonderful 1012!

Thanks, ColDayMan!

 

Yeah, whoda thunk it, huh?  Me becoming an urban enthusiast!  But I really get it, now.  It's something new for me, and I'm actually excited about this change I'm experiencing within myself.  I'm going into Google maps and using the street view to look at different urban cores of major cities, and going "Wow - how cool!"  LOL.

amazing, yet its clevelanders that should weap the most -- this or any other period in cinci was not even as dense as cleveland was at its peak. in fact the cleve was really revving up at this period in time. its all too sad to think about. otoh as we ring in the new year at least the future is lookin good for downtown growth in the three c's!

amazing, yet its clevelanders that should weap the most

lol! not that your dramatic highlight would!  :wink:

 

    I highly recommend the book "City of Tomorrow" by LeCorbusier, which was first published in 1924, about the same time that the photo was taken. LeCorbusier argues for urban renewal.

 

"It is a dreadful thing to look at these old realities which are so shocking to the spirit of today."

 

Whether it's right or wrong, this book offers a good insight into what planners were thinking at the time.

LeCorbusier was another French urban dreamer who applied early 20th century urban planning ideas to re-invent cities. He was inspired by Baron Haussman who, under the Victorian era reign of Napolean III, levelled the quaint medieval sections of Paris to rebuild the city in the then popular mansard-roofed, Second Empire style. While Haussman was successful in his rebuilding efforts, there are no successful urban renewal efforts based on LeCorbusier's plans that I'm aware of. He was an advocate of dense urban centers and strict functionality of form. (the antithesis of ornate Victoriana) In the U.S., at least, there are few success stories to come out of the multitude of urban renewal programs employed in the mid-20th century. (Cincinnati is a textbook example) However, these Federally funded, bulldozer-driven programs were successful in eradicating countless blocks of historic architecture that today many would find very appealing. We are fast approaching an era of scarcity which will force us to re-consider our old wasteful ways. Prosperity in the future will require much smarter planning and utilization of existing resources not wholesale demolition and reconstruction with new. 

 

Probably LeCorbusier's most significant achievement was getting his book published and becoming the "father of the modern movement." Although he didn't invent the modern trends, he did publicize them.

 

The "Cincinnati Metropolitan Master Plan of 1948" was very much influenced by the "City of Tomorrow."

 

 

amazing, yet its clevelanders that should weap the most -- this or any other period in cinci was not even as dense as cleveland was at its peak. in fact the cleve was really revving up at this period in time. its all too sad to think about. otoh as we ring in the new year at least the future is lookin good for downtown growth in the three c's!

 

Actually, that's not quite true.  Over-the-Rhine was the densest section of America outside of Manhattan years before this photo was taken.  Cleveland (nor any city in Ohio) never reached that peak in any section.  But count your blessings, you didn't lose it either.

Yeah, thank you CDM. We all know that over time Cleveland surpassed Cincinnati in population and in population density. The linked picture speaks volumes.It shows the core downtown,part of the Westend 9NOTHING ABOVE

Sorry, hit the wrong key, continuing on........nothing above Liberty, and only a portion of OTR. This was the basin area before the climb up the hills,and annexation and the spreading out of the city.By 1860 an average of 30,000 people lived in each square mile of the central city.

Which is incredible if you think about it.  Nothing but 3-5 story buildings in a flat basin full of overcrowded, unsanitary conditions of 30,000 each square mile.  Usually nowadays you only get that in highrise districts such as River North in Chicago or, well, most of Manhattan though in Europe or Asia it isn't uncommon.  Ask Paris and Mumbai.

^ or ask cleveland.

 

not only was cleveland's peak denser than cinci's peak for the cities as a whole, but if you are going to slice and dice up neighnborhoods than for example cleveland's little hollywood sector of apt blocks was denser than any equivilant otr blocks. its just much less known and so it doesnt get the cred on uo that otr does.

Cleveland's city peak density just shy of 1950 was around 14,000 per square mile when it had 915,000.  Cincinnati's city population density in 1820 was 19,000 per square mile.

 

And I'm going to have to see some evidence of Little Hollywood having a population density of over 30,000 in a square mile.  If I remember correctly, Little Hollywood was just a small subsection of Hough.  Though Little Hollywood I believe held around 60,000ish people in the 70's (streets, not decade), there were subsections of Queensgate/West End and Over-the-Rhine that either matched that or exceeded that, particularly the African-American section near what is now Linn.  In 1850, a half-square mile of Over-the-Rhine was made up of 43,000 Germans (so doing simple math, 86,000 a square mile if you really want to push the math game).

 

But the slicing game is silly.  The point is that Cleveland never had an area demolished shown in that aerial and it should count its blessings.  All cities had areas we wish wouldn't have been but what is shown is just an insult to urban renewal injury.

^ or ask cleveland.

 

not only was cleveland's peak denser than cinci's peak for the cities as a whole, but if you are going to slice and dice up neighnborhoods than for example cleveland's little hollywood sector of apt blocks was denser than any equivilant otr blocks. its just much less known and so it doesnt get the cred on uo that otr does.

 

Perhaps you could post a historical picture of this part of Cleveland.  The way that Cleveland is built, with very little row housing, makes it hard to believe it ever had the same built density of the West End and OTR.  I don't doubt there were parts of the city that had very high population densities, just as there were in Cincinnati (much earlier) but from a built form perspective, it probably looked much different.

Cleveland's city peak density just shy of 1950 was around 14,000 per square mile when it had 915,000.  Cincinnati's city population density in 1820 was 19,000 per square mile.

 

 

except for that nagging stat you left out that both cities are exactly the same size, so you are going to have to explain that.

 

 

And I'm going to have to see some evidence of Little Hollywood having a population density of over 30,000 in a square mile.  If I remember correctly, Little Hollywood was just a small subsection of Hough.  Though Little Hollywood I believe held around 60,000ish people in the 70's (streets, not decade), there were subsections of Queensgate/West End and Over-the-Rhine that either matched that or exceeded that, particularly the African-American section near what is now Linn.  In 1850, a half-square mile of Over-the-Rhine was made up of 43,000 Germans (so doing simple math, 86,000 a square mile if you really want to push the math game).

 

But the slicing game is silly.  The point is that Cleveland never had an area demolished shown in that aerial and it should count its blessings.  All cities had areas we wish wouldn't have been but what is shown is just an insult to urban renewal injury.

 

i certainly agree slicing and dicing is silly and both cities had major losses. i'll just add the apt block built form in hough/little hollywood was very different from the older lowrise variety of otr. see below.

 

 

Perhaps you could post a historical picture of this part of Cleveland.  The way that Cleveland is built, with very little row housing, makes it hard to believe it ever had the same built density of the West End and OTR.  I don't doubt there were parts of the city that had very high population densities, just as there were in Cincinnati (much earlier) but from a built form perspective, it probably looked much different.

 

there isnt that much historically to see as unfortunately its an almost unknown history!

but yes the apt rows were very different looking from otr.

although i can remember some of it in my lifetime -- its mostly all gone now.

the apt building at the end of the movie antoine fisher where his mother lives is kind of an example -- i think even that has been torn down:

 

 

whats left being literally marked for destruction after the 1968 riots!

 

an old uo hough thread:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,2047.0.html

 

except for that nagging stat you left out that both cities are exactly the same size, so you are going to have to explain that.

 

Uhhh...except that also nagging stat that I also said 1820.  Now unless Cincinnati had Bond Hill, Westwood (which is nearly a 1/3rd of the current city limits alone), Price Hill, and a PF Chang off I-71 in 1820, that'd be news to me.

 

And while those Hough photos are another sad reminder of yesterday (particularly that lower-left section of the first photo), structurally it is not as dense as that OTR photo posted in this thread.  Even the building height density of Little Hollywood/Hough is the exact same height as Over-the-Rhine (meaning, 4-5 stories).  The difference is that OTR continued that density while Cleveland took the Great Lakes style of gangways and apparently mini-parking lots. Honestly, there exists sections of that second photo below in Cleveland Heights particularly in Coventry.

except for that nagging stat you left out that both cities are exactly the same size, so you are going to have to explain that.

 

Uhhh...except that also nagging stat that I also said 1820. Now unless Cincinnati had Bond Hill, Westwood (which is nearly a 1/3rd of the current city limits alone), Price Hill, and a PF Chang off I-71 in 1820, that'd be news to me.

 

 

uhhh back at ya -- as if cleveland was the cleveland of today during its peak? and where again was cinci uniformly 4-5 stories on any one block much less uniformly for block after block? not to mention the more varied older and smaller otr structures have businesses at street level -- the cle apt rows you see there are outright people boxes and so are structurally more dense.

 

The pic of 1920's Cincy is clearly a lot, lot more dense than those pictures of Cleveland.  You just have to look at it..

 

While it looks like an amazing amount of density, it had to be miserably overcrowded at the time.

except for that nagging stat you left out that both cities are exactly the same size, so you are going to have to explain that.

 

Uhhh...except that also nagging stat that I also said 1820.  Now unless Cincinnati had Bond Hill, Westwood (which is nearly a 1/3rd of the current city limits alone), Price Hill, and a PF Chang off I-71 in 1820, that'd be news to me.

 

 

uhhh back at ya -- as if cleveland was the cleveland of today during its peak? and where again was cinci uniformly 4-5 stories on any one block much less uniformly for block after block? not to mention the more varied older and smaller otr structures have businesses at street level -- the cle apt rows you see there are outright people boxes and so are structurally more dense.

 

Cleveland in 1900 was generally around the same size as Cleveland in 2010.  I believe Kamm's Corner/Westpark were the only notable "recent" annexations according to the book below:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=qJgpDMlCOPEC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=what+was+the+size+of+Cleveland+in+1900&source=bl&ots=PLmbXj8Hf5&sig=bMTBL2OeWw8z7B78P4oX8gWyjsU&hl=en&ei=fy0hTb7tMYH-8AbE4JWYDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=what%20was%20the%20size%20of%20Cleveland%20in%201900&f=false

 

Cincinnati quite clearly annexed well over 7/10ths of the city after 1820 to what today is 70ish square miles.

 

and where again was cinci uniformly 4-5 stories on any one block much less uniformly for block after block

 

Over-the-Rhine and Pendleton, to be specific.

 

not to mention the more varied older and smaller otr structures have businesses at street level

 

There aren't that many "smaller structures" in OTR, especially back when.  The fact that those buildings did have first floor retail shows how much more densely packed in those people were on floors 2-5.  And Pendleton and the West End did not have that commercial retail space that OTR had and were mostly residential, like Little Hollywood.  It's a pointless game, really.

 

the cle apt rows you see there are outright people boxes and so are structurally more dense.

 

Anyone can look at that photo I posted and that photos you posted and see that downtown basin was significantly denser.  Comparable areas of Cincinnati that remind me of the photos you showcased that come to mind immediately are old Norwood (which isn't even in the city) akin to Hamtramck/section of Buffalo or Evanston/Avondale before the renewal.  Current day Norwood below:

 

^Yes, clearly, more dense, not even close. Heck I can"t see the built form for all of the trees everywhere.

except for that nagging stat you left out that both cities are exactly the same size, so you are going to have to explain that.

 

Uhhh...except that also nagging stat that I also said 1820.  Now unless Cincinnati had Bond Hill, Westwood (which is nearly a 1/3rd of the current city limits alone), Price Hill, and a PF Chang off I-71 in 1820, that'd be news to me.

 

uhhh back at ya -- as if cleveland was the cleveland of today during its peak? and where again was cinci uniformly 4-5 stories on any one block much less uniformly for block after block? not to mention the more varied older and smaller otr structures have businesses at street level -- the cle apt rows you see there are outright people boxes and so are structurally more dense.

 

Cleveland in 1900 was generally around the same size as Cleveland in 2010.  I believe Kamm's Corner/Westpark were the only notable "recent" annexations according to the book below:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=qJgpDMlCOPEC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=what+was+the+size+of+Cleveland+in+1900&source=bl&ots=PLmbXj8Hf5&sig=bMTBL2OeWw8z7B78P4oX8gWyjsU&hl=en&ei=fy0hTb7tMYH-8AbE4JWYDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=what%20was%20the%20size%20of%20Cleveland%20in%201900&f=false

 

Cincinnati quite clearly annexed well over 7/10ths of the city after 1820 to what today is 70ish square miles.

 

where did you see the cle sq mileage in that book? maybe i missed it, but i'm not seeing it. and what was the sq mileage of cinci in 1820? i mean outside of your opinion of it being 7/10ths of today? i’m not finding that on goog and you must have it at hand to say that. this could more easily be answered if we just had the acreage numbers instead of the rhetoric.

 

 

 

There aren't that many "smaller structures" in OTR, especially back when.  The fact that those buildings did have first floor retail shows how much more densely packed in those people were on floors 2-5.  And Pendleton and the West End did not have that commercial retail space that OTR had and were mostly residential, like Little Hollywood.  It's a pointless game, really.

 

how do you twist large uniform apt block rows into being less dense than 2-5 floor highly varied blocks with businesses on the ground floor? because thats what otr is, at least as we see today of whats left. nowhere is it uniform "like little hollywood" was. i put up the historic pictures as requested, so now its back in your court to dig out something else closer up to show otherwise. have at it!

 

 

Anyone can look at that photo I posted and that photos you posted and see that downtown basin was significantly denser.

 

i see more buildings of various sizes yes...and if they were once as dense peoplewise as you say they must be half empty there because with that photo being from the 1920’s we know there weren’t more people in cinci than in cleveland.

 

Comparable areas of Cincinnati that remind me of the photos you showcased that come to mind immediately are old Norwood (which isn't even in the city) akin to Hamtramck/section of Buffalo or Evanston/Avondale before the renewal.  Current day Norwood below:

 

 

wha the?! is that aerial comparison some kind of joke? there isnt even an apt building in sight! and i did not see you dragging other cities in?!! come on man! don’t do this! all you have to do is just give up the square mileage stats and post a few more historic apt row pics, hell cinci is older and more well documented than the cleve, you still have a chance to win this one!  :wink:

 

where did you see the cle sq mileage in that book? maybe i missed it, but i'm not seeing it. and what was the sq mileage of cinci in 1820? i mean outside of your opinion of it being 7/10ths of today? i’m not finding that on goog and you must have it at hand to say that. this could more easily be answered if we just had the acreage numbers instead of the rhetoric.

 

Well, Cincinnati isn't that hard to figure out.  Columbia-Tusculum, East End, the immediate basin + downtown and Mt. Adams would be the old 1820's city limits.

 

how do you twist large uniform apt block rows into being less dense than 2-5 floor highly varied blocks with businesses on the ground floor? because thats what otr is, at least as we see today of whats left. nowhere is it uniform "like little hollywood" was. i put up the historic pictures as requested, so now its back in your court to dig out something else closer up to show otherwise. have at it!

 

How on earth OTR "varied blocks" when your photography QUITE clearly shows little sections of apartment buildings and mostly wood-frame housing/mini-parking lots?  That isn't uniform by any means.  My ball was already shot with the initially posted aerial. 

 

i see more buildings of various sizes yes...and if they were once as dense peoplewise as you say they must be half empty there because with that photo being from the 1920’s we know there weren’t more people in cinci than in cleveland.

 

Cleveland was also significantly built out in a larger area compared to Cincinnati and thus had a higher uniform population density.  Westwood (Cincinnati's largest neighborhood), which was nothing but random plots was essentially a village in the 1920's compared to a more streetcar suburban/ranch house area it is today.  I'm sure Westpark/Kamm's Corner was similar but Westwood is significantly larger than that area.  Let's not even get into the hills/watershed aspect of this because that's been done to death.

 

wha the?! is that aerial comparison some kind of joke? there isnt even an apt building in sight! and i did not see you dragging other cities in?!! come on man! don’t do this! all you have to do is just give up the square mileage stats and post a few more historic apt row pics, hell cinci is older and more well documented than the cleve, you still have a chance to win this one!  :wink:

 

I've already won this one.  You're the one posting half-assed dark aerials of random apartment complexes, wood-frame gangway housing, and trees.  Hell, I could pull out:

 

 

But that would just be a nail in the coffin.

cinci is older and more well documented than the cleve, you still have a chance to win this one! :wink:

 

Aside from the density issue, the fact that Cincinnati is older puts forth another potential flaw in the claim that Cleveland has more to weep about. Cincinnati's lost architecture was older and more unique, particularly for the Midwest.

 

Re: density, CDM is right -- the basin was much more dense than anywhere in Cleveland, and at its peak density it made up a large portion of the city's area. Cleveland filled in more uniformly to a larger area. Cleveland didn't start out so highly concentrated, followed by tons of annexation of less dense suburbs, like Cincinnati did.

 

i see more buildings of various sizes yes...and if they were once as dense peoplewise as you say they must be half empty there because with that photo being from the 1920’s we know there weren’t more people in cinci than in cleveland.

 

The reason the buildings wouldn't need to be half empty with a drastic drop in population is that the number of people living in each building also dropped drastically. Think about buildings in the Lower East Side becoming populated with students, displacing Chinese immigrants. You might fit two or three students in a unit which used to house 6-10 immigrants. Same idea.

 

The basin, at its peak population, was second only to Manhattan in density (and likely levels of horrible sanitation). The inclines and streetcars enabled affordable life outside the basin, so their advent began the flight to suburbs on surrounding hills. The subway which was being built in the 20's (when the picture was taken) was actually meant to further this process along.

Chris, here is the full version of that West End photo:

 

You can see that this version includes another block or two to the east of your image, which I believe is the image I scanned back in 1999 or 2000 out of a book.  The scan I'm posting here is from the actual photograph kept by the Cincinnati Historical Society.

 

I'm definitely not seeing any trees in this photo.  New York was notorious for having rear tenements, and although I'm not seeing those here, the block shapes in the West End were such that the buildings nearly backed up to one another.  In Over-the-Rhine some blocks did have tiny "yards" behind the building, the best known probably being the green bar (Werlitz sp?) still standing next to the Vine St. Kroger, watering hole for Boss Cox.   

 

The dirt patch you are seeing is "Terminal Parkway", formerly Laurel Ave., now Ezzard Charles Drive.  This was a formerly 20ft wide street widened to something like 100 feet by demolishing row homes on either side.  It is the street which gave title to the Laurel Homes public housing which was built in this area in 1937, just a year or two after this photo was taken.   

New York was notorious for having rear tenements, and although I'm not seeing those here, the block shapes in the West End were such that the buildings nearly backed up to one another.  In Over-the-Rhine some blocks did have tiny "yards" behind the building, the best known probably being the green bar (Werlitz sp?) still standing next to the Vine St. Kroger, watering hole for Boss Cox.

 

OTR also has what looks like a version of the NYC tenement, sort of "half -dumbells", or maybe brick tenement versions of the telescope houses one sees in Buffalo.  You can see these Cincy tenemnets around Findlay Market.

 

Incidentally you find rear tenements in the Great Lakes area too.  Chicago and Buffalo have these rear houses or tenements; fitting two houses or apartment bldgs on the same block.  Uusually this is done via putting in two two-flats or three-flats, or a two-flat in front and cottage in back.  They are called "Alley Houses" in Chicago and "Back Houses" in Buffalo.  I wonder if they existed in Detroit or Cleveland? So much of old Detroit is gone so it's hard to say, but maybe they did exist in Cleveland?

 

This alley house phenomenon would be one way of increasing density, though the street scape wouldn't look as built-out like Cincy since even in the denser areas that had a lot of alley houses in Chicago the buildings were usually seperated by gangways, as ColDayMan notes.  There was no solid street wall.  Incidentally ColDayMans usage of "gangway" as an urbanist or architetcutural context is the first I've heard outside of Chicago (other than in the nautical sense of a ships gangway).  I used to think this was a local dialect thing?

 

 

 

I guess Im appalled at how grungy the watefront is in the thread parent pic...closer to the river.  Yet so much was lost heading down to the river, south of Dixie Terminal.  Blocks and blocks of old things.

 

The Public Landing...that was always a big open space, correct?

 

@@@

 

I keep on going back to that Eggleston Avenue area east of Lytle Park, how that area was totally transformed.  Eggleston must have been a major street at that time.  And I think I can see the incline going up to Mount Adams, too. 

 

@@@

 

Good Points. In the 1870's, sensationalist newspaper writer Lafcadio Hearn wrote stomach-turning accounts about the virulent, crime-infested slums located near the riverfront that were derisively called Bucktown, Rats Row, and Sausage Row. It was a ramshackle district of flop-houses, cheap hotels, brothels, opium dens, gambling establishments, and constant violence. This was where those residents of Cincinnati on the fringes of society lived in the 19th century.

 

I recall reading some of Hearn's pasages in an architectural guide to Cincy...this would be the east end of downtown, vicinity of the canal and Deer Creek, if I recall right.

 

Maybe some of this was incorporated (or name-checked) in a song by the Tillers..."George Street Beat", seems to be very specfic about Cincinnati places...there's a lyric about a "Rat Row".  Not sure where George Street was, on these pix (or on a map).