I never really meant to spend an entire year putting together this album. I’ve taken thousands of pictures in Cincinnati this year, and I had hoped to share batches of them as the year went on, but I never felt that I had enough shots worth sharing. So I stockpiled the few from each excursion that I thought were decent, and almost accidentally I found myself putting together this love letter to Cincinnati. In the nearly five years that I’ve lived here, I’ve been enchanted and surprised and frustrated and delighted by this city, and it’s a bit weird not knowing whether I’ll still be here after graduating from UC in the spring. One thing’s for sure- even if I don’t end up here long term, I’ll never forget my experiences and I’ll be talking everyone’s ear off about how great the Queen City really is. I hope you enjoy this look back at 2015 and perhaps you’ll get a feel for why I’ve been so proud to call this place home.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the oldest photo in the batch, from the tree lighting ceremony last November. He asked me to make him famous, but posting the photo here is about as good as I can do in that regard.

 

 

 

 

 

I have this one hanging in my living room.

 

 

 

Lasers in Mt. Adams.

 

'

 

 

 

You didn't think I would leave out the single most important event of the year, did you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phew, that was exhausting. Cincinnati is far too vast to fully document in a year, but I’m happy with the ground I’ve covered so far. I hope it was worth the wait!

 

Awesome photos. You really captured the charm of the city, along with the grit.

You got my house in the second photo, and I'm pretty sure I was standing about 10 feet from you if the picture of the patriotic fellow is in Northside Tavern during the 4th of July Parade this year. It's a small world! Great photos all around.

Great photos!  I fell in love with Cincinnati on my first visit back in 1991 and then again when I came back in 2009.

She's a beaut

Love the grittiness/elegance you managed to capture. Awesome job!

 

May I ask though why you aren't sure you'll be staying in Cincinnati?

Whoa! Awesome photos!

Nice set.  What a truly historic and photogenic city.... I'm thrilled about the new streetcar, but town with so many multi-unit, mixed-use buildings and so much density deserves true rapid transit.  Let's hope RT system gets built soon, hopefully using the tunnels.

Great photos!  There are a few in there that I don't recognize, so I clearly have more exploring to do myself.  Thanks for sharing.

One of the best photo threads I've seen on UO. Thanks.

Amazing collection of photos! As frustrated as I get by Cincinnati sometimes, I am always aware and appreciative of the fact that I live in a truly beautiful city. 

Fantastic set, a bunch of angles I have never seen!

 

Outstanding pics.  I love the composition and lighting of these shots, well done.  These photos really capture the essence of the city.

I'm glad you showcased the variety of neighborhoods with this (Oakley, Avondale, Walnut Hills, Hyde Park, etc) along with the Covington/Newport collection.  Nice job!

Great set!  I need to take a long weekend down there.

Great job - thanks for sharing!

Thanks everyone! I tried to show off as much unique stuff as I possibly could, this city is constantly surprising me.

 

To answer a few questions:

 

You got my house in the second photo, and I'm pretty sure I was standing about 10 feet from you if the picture of the patriotic fellow is in Northside Tavern during the 4th of July Parade this year. It's a small world! Great photos all around.

 

Yup, that would have been me! It really is a small world. My coworker's sister was in town from New Haven and we wanted to take her somewhere different for the 4th, and what better place than Northside for the parade?

 

May I ask though why you aren't sure you'll be staying in Cincinnati?

 

It really comes down to where I get hired. I'd love to stay here, but I've been applying all across the Midwest for stuff. I certainly would love to end up here long-term, but at this point in my life I'm not opposed to getting out and seeing a bit more of the country.

You should really post this set on the Skyscraperpage forum so more people who are unfamiliar with Cincinnati can see these photos!

Fantastic!  Thanks for sharing.  There were certainly a few shots that I had to stop and think about where you were shooting from. 

Holy crap! Amazing photos and very artistic compositions! Fantastic job!

 

I agree with edale ... If you haven't already, spread the love!

Would it be an accurate statement that Cincinnati's hilly terrain and landscape is most equivalent to San Fran?

 

I was thinking of other nearer cities, and the only one that really came to mind, that's closer is Pitsburgh.

Would it be an accurate statement that Cincinnati's hilly terrain and landscape is most equivalent to San Fran?

 

I was thinking of other nearer cities, and the only one that really came to mind, that's closer is Pitsburgh.

 

Not really.  All of Cincinnati's hills reach the same height at about the same slope because the "hills" are actually the former surface of the area with the valleys having been dug out by fluvial processes.  For example, the Mill Creek Valley that I-75 follows is the former path of the Ohio River.  When you're on Spring Grove Ave. you're in the old Ohio River.

 

By comparison all of the hills and mountains in the SF area were pushed upward by tectonic pressure.  That's why SF's hills are so erratically shaped. 

 

The other big difference of course is that they were able to lay out SF in a grid.  They couldn't do that in Cincinnati on the hills because the hills are comprised of very unstable layers of sedimentary rock.  The streets have to follow the contours of the hills to a much greater extent.   

 

 

^Never been to Pittsburgh, but I agree with your assessment regarding Cincinnati vs San Francisco.  Any thoughts on how Cincinnati's terrain compares to Portland's?  I was surprised on my first visit by how similar the environment of the two cities feel (ignoring Mt Hood looming in the distance and ratio of evergreens to deciduous trees).  I thought it was just me, but a few of my Portland coworkers have since said the same thing while visiting Cincinnati.

I'm ashamed to say that I still don't recognize this one, but it's beautiful.  Where is this?

 

I'm ashamed to say that I still don't recognize this one, but it's beautiful.  Where is this?

 

 

Dixie Terminal, I believe!

I recently drove through East Price Hill, and man that place has some really nice architecture. And there's some great intact stretches of historic buildings as well.

 

I'm afraid though that this area will become crime ridden soon, and essienitally the next OTR. Alot of recent crime has been pushed that way. Which is sad, because this area, along with the hilly landscape, is quite a sight.

I recently drove through East Price Hill, and man that place has some really nice architecture. And there's some great intact stretches of historic buildings as well.

 

I'm afraid though that this area will become crime ridden soon, and essienitally the next OTR. Alot of recent crime has been pushed that way. Which is sad, because this area, along with the hilly landscape, is quite a sight.

 

You seem to be afraid of a lot of things.

I recently drove through East Price Hill, and man that place has some really nice architecture. And there's some great intact stretches of historic buildings as well.

 

I'm afraid though that this area will become crime ridden soon, and essienitally the next OTR. Alot of recent crime has been pushed that way. Which is sad, because this area, along with the hilly landscape, is quite a sight.

 

You seem to be afraid of a lot of things.

 

I'm afraid of life. But that's a story for my therapist to hear.

I'm ashamed to say that I still don't recognize this one, but it's beautiful.  Where is this?

 

Dixie Terminal, I believe!

 

Yup, that is in fact Dixie Terminal. Only took me four years to get downtown at a time when it was actually open!

^For those who don't know, Dixie Terminal used to be a transit terminal. Streetcars from Kentucky crossed the Suspension Bridge, crossed some overpasses, and made a loop inside the building. After the streetcars were retired, Tank buses did the same thing for many years. I think it ended sometime in the 1990's, when Tank buses used city streets instead. The overpasses were removed when Fort Washington Way was reconstructed.

The stairway in the center of the photo led to the streetcar loop.

 

Thanks for posting the photos. I really enjoyed those.  :-)

Yes those ramps were removed, if my memory is correct, in 1998.  I know I have a photo of them partially demolished. 

^Never been to Pittsburgh, but I agree with your assessment regarding Cincinnati vs San Francisco.  Any thoughts on how Cincinnati's terrain compares to Portland's?  I was surprised on my first visit by how similar the environment of the two cities feel (ignoring Mt Hood looming in the distance and ratio of evergreens to deciduous trees).  I thought it was just me, but a few of my Portland coworkers have since said the same thing while visiting Cincinnati.

 

Portland is the better comparison, not San Francisco. Also, Cincinnati's hillsides have erosion issues. SF's do not since it's mostly solid bedrock. San Francisco's highest density is built on slopes of the hills (particularly Nob Hill). Cincinnati's hillsides don't have much density due to building losses. My guess is the hillsides in Cincy used to be dense, but erosion destroyed that. The valleys and waterfront are where SF has lost the most buildings in earthquakes. Even in 1906, many buildings in SF survived on the hills. Most of Downtown, SOMA, and the Mission District was completely decimated (these are flat areas at sea level). San Francisco is surrounded by water on three sides. The geography is completely different since it's a coastal city. Cincinnati is not. It's built on a river 600 miles from an ocean and 200 miles from a Great Lake. The two cities really are night and day. I've always felt the Ohio comparisons are odd. Housing and architecture is also quite different in Cincy. SF is mostly matchstick wooden railroad flats and large apartment buildings. Cincy has lots of East Coast-looking town homes while its most historic areas (OTR) look like Baltimore and Philly, not SF. I never saw any parallels with San Francisco. Cincy's small hills usually are made up of green, leafy trees with buildings at the top and bottom. SF's most urban fabric is on the hillsides and it's West Coast Victorian. Cincy's most urban fabric is in the basin and it's a mix of East Coast and Great Lakes cities.

 

One of the most interesting aspects of Cincinnati is that it seamlessly mixes these elements of East Coast and Great Lakes cities. Anyone who has visited the city can see it gives off a weird mixed-identity vibe ("how the hell does a place like this exist?"). Cincinnati has an insane amount of architectural diversity, particularly when it comes to housing. You've got everything from 1850-1950 in Cincy. It's pretty unique in the United States. I'd put Cincinnati near the top of in terms of architectural diversity. The Great Lakes cities are more late 1800's/early 1900's while Cincy still has some stuff from the mid-1800's. That makes it a weird place. It also straddles the cultural line between North and South, which has led to a really a bizarre history. You've got everything from river commerce, to canals, to Underground Railroad, to Copperheads, to early industrial boom, to consumer products, to large-scale manufacturing losses, to Rust Belt decay, to race riots, etc. Cincinnati in some ways is the most American of all American cities. I bet it was an insane place to live from 1850 all the way up to World War II. I bet there were all these different regions fighting for cultural dominance. It never had a real regional identity. Even today, I'd argue Cincinnati doesn't have a regional identity. It still seems like a weird melting pot of North, South, Appalachia, East Coast, Great Lakes, and Inland Midwest. There is nothing else like it in America. I totally get Cincinnati to Pittsburgh comparisons, but Pitt leans more Great Lakes and a little more East Coast. In contrast to Ohio River cities, San Francisco clearly has a regional identity. It's not mixing much of anything besides a lot of money. :wink:

 

Most SF neighborhoods look nearly identical to one another. There actually is very little architectural diversity in San Francisco. Almost the entire city's building stock is 1906-1930 with surviving examples of late 1800's architecture in older hillside neighborhoods at the edge of the fireball zone (Nob Hill, North Beach, Pacific Heights, Alamo Square, Haight-Ashbury). San Francisco's only influence is itself.

 

Portland is a much better comparison since it's built on a navigable river and has similar hills/terrain to Cincinnati. There also is a clear parallel between the two historic downtown cores. Portland reminds me of a busier, more touristy Cincinnati with a bunch of streetcars and bicycles everywhere. Get rid of that waterfront freeway in Cincy, and you've got Portland potential. But Cincy has way better housing stock at much cheaper prices, so it could eclipse Portland. And not just a little bit...I'm talking by a huge margin. Portland housing is dirt cheap by West Coast standards, but it's overpriced garbage compared to Ohio housing. And Cincinnati arguably has the strongest bang for buck (maybe in the whole country). There is no housing bubble there, and it just never boomed like every city on the West Coast. Portland is the city to go after in Cincy. Portland clearly has a strong regional identity (hell, we have a whole TV show about it!), but it's more similar to Cincinnati, and it could be in a bubble.

 

San Francisco is much, much bigger, and much, much denser than Cincinnati. It's also classic Coastal California terrain, which is very different from Ohio River Valley terrain. The only city that beats SF on density is New York City. And in terms of wealth and economy, no city on earth beats it. :|

 

*I've long felt Ohio should turn its eye towards the Pacific Northwest while also keeping an eye on repopulating East Coast cities with Rust Belt elements like Baltimore and Newark. The problem with looking at Coastal California cities is that they're places with perfect year-round weather and a very cosmopolitan vibe. Rich people from around the world move there just for the lifestyle alone. They could boom even if they had terrible economies. It's just way too different in terms of geography, people, economy, etc.

 

San Francisco and New York City are the two American cities that mostly exist in their own worlds, and thus aren't the best models for other places. In many ways, San Francisco revels in the fact it's not like the rest of America.

 

**New York City seems to accept the rest of America better, but it's still a hell of a lot different from anywhere else in the country.

 

One of the most interesting aspects of Cincinnati is that it seamlessly mixes these elements of East Coast and Great Lakes cities. Anyone who has visited the city can see it gives off a weird mixed-identity vibe ("how the hell does a place like this exist?"). Cincinnati has an insane amount of architectural diversity, particularly when it comes to housing. You've got everything from 1850-1950 in Cincy. It's pretty unique in the United States. I'd put Cincinnati near the top of in terms of architectural diversity.

 

This is the one thing that has constantly surprised me and infuriated me as I've explored the city. The developmental patterns of city neighborhoods here are so totally bizarre and I've struggled to wrap my head around how so many contradictory styles of architecture and city planning can exist in the same city. The "detached row houses" just seem so baffling to me, especially in Corryville. They're the exact same skinny houses you see down in Pendleton or elsewhere but they have sizeable side yards and huge back yards more in line with what you'd expect to see in other Great Lakes cities, interspersed with outher housing styles. It's just so weird that the layout of some of the (relatively) flatter neighborhoods didn't continue the building pattern of what you'd see in the basin. I get that a lot of it was the wealth running out to the original suburbs, but it still seems incredibly spread out in some parts, and it never really reached the point where the old stuff got torn down and replaced with denser construction.

 

I think the west side confuses me the most. You'll notice that I don't have many photos from west of the Mill Creek, and part of that is because I just can't geographically figure out that side of town at all. To even get to places like Westwood you have to travel up an incredibly long boulevard that is essentially isolated until you get to the other side of Mt Airy Forest, and it all seems so completely detached from the density down in the basin and the Mill Creek valley. I guess I would have expected these areas to have developed closer to the edge of the hillside with higher densities, but then you get into Price Hill and it's all very spread out again before fairly quickly breaking down into cul-de-sacs. It just seems so very bizarre, like it's its own little world. That said, I'm hoping to spend some more time over that way since it really is unexplored territory for me, for the most part.

 

Every neighborhood here meets other neighborhoods in such odd ways, and I think it makes Cincinnati feel very detached and eclectic simply because each neighborhood really is its own little city that happened to grow out and bump into another city that has a completely different development pattern. There really isn't anything like it, and it's led to such an incredible diversity of architecture that you're always going to find some really weird, eclectic gem hidden in the oddest place. And that's what I love the most about living here, is just how surprising it is. You can take four different routes to the same place and you'll travel through four completely different environments. It never gets old.

^The amount of architectural diversity is remarkable, and my theory is the city had a long, drawn-out growth phase before peaking in 1950. When you compare Cincinnati's growth trajectory to Northeastern and Great Lakes cities, there are clear differences. Great Lakes and Northeastern cities boomed fast. They all had a 20-30 year boom that contained the bulk of population growth. So most of them locked into two or three styles. Cincinnati wasn't like that. It had slow, steady growth for about 100 years. That has to be at least some of the reason there isn't a distinct style in Cincy. Its slow growth allowed it to not lock into a particular trend, so it captured a hodgepodge of everything built in urban America. That's why I think it's the most American of all American cities. Say you have no idea where Cincinnati is and you're randomly plopped down there. All you know is that you are in America. Would you know what region you are in?

 

Did any other major city have a drawn-out growth trajectory like this from 1850-1950? This 100-year stretch is when we built our urban cores, and Cincinnati grew through all of it:

 

1850 115,435 149.1%

1860 161,044 39.5%

1870 216,239 34.3%

1880 255,139 18.0%

1890 296,908 16.4%

1900 325,902 9.8%

1910 363,591 11.6%

1920 401,247 10.4%

1930 451,160 12.4%

1940 455,610 1.0%

1950 503,998 10.6%

 

I don't think any other major American city had a trajectory like this. The only thing Cincinnati shares is the obvious stagnation in the 1930's that all established cities experienced.

 

*Also, I think in historic photos, you can see a lot more density on hillsides. I do think erosion and soil issues led to a more disconnected city. I believe Pittsburgh suffered through the same. It must just be the muddy, wet Ohio River Valley terrain. That river also used to flood pretty bad.

Quote from: TroyEros on December 03, 2015, 06:44:53 PM

Would it be an accurate statement that Cincinnati's hilly terrain and landscape is most equivalent to San Fran?

 

I was thinking of other nearer cities, and the only one that really came to mind, that's closer is Pitsburgh.

 

Not really.  All of Cincinnati's hills reach the same height at about the same slope because the "hills" are actually the former surface of the area with the valleys having been dug out by fluvial processes.  For example, the Mill Creek Valley that I-75 follows is the former path of the Ohio River.  When you're on Spring Grove Ave. you're in the old Ohio River.

 

By comparison all of the hills and mountains in the SF area were pushed upward by tectonic pressure.  That's why SF's hills are so erratically shaped. 

 

The other big difference of course is that they were able to lay out SF in a grid.  They couldn't do that in Cincinnati on the hills because the hills are comprised of very unstable layers of sedimentary rock.  The streets have to follow the contours of the hills to a much greater extent. 

 

Cincinnati's topography is what is known as a "pena plain" (not sure of the spellling), but yes in essence it is a City of valleys giving the appearance of hills.

 

 

That's why I think it's the most American of all American cities.

 

^^ That's another strange thing about Cincinnati. it definitely has its own culture, but it doesn't immediately come across as super distinctive in most cases, other than the chili I suppose. You can probably tell if someone is from New Orleans even if they're removed out of the context of their city, but here the distinctive aspects of the culture don't seem quite as readily apparent until you spend more time immersing yourself in the city and seeing some of the idiosyncrasies of life here. I think some of it may have gotten muted just due to the influence of the generic, flavorless Ohio sprawl that dominates so much of the metro now, but then you get into the nitty-gritty and have all these great things like the Northside parade and Bockfest and praying the steps at Holy Cross-Immaculata, and they're these great regional things but they just seem expected so no one makes a big to-do about the little unique things that happen here. It's something that should be embraced and shared more often.

 

As to the asterisk, the hillside streets are absolutely my favorite in the city. There's something disorienting and thrilling about walking down a street like Mulberry or McMicken with dense buildings on either side and travelling relatively flat, and then coming to a cross street that shoots up the side of a hill. I'll bet the effect was even more spectacular when all of the gaps were filled in decades ago. Now, many of them have strange houses tucked in among incredibly thick forests, and it's downright spooky and hard to believe you're literally a street away from the dense urban core. One house that intrigues me is at the foot of the Ohio Avenue steps (I've attached a photo of it that I took from Jackson Hill Park), it's so tucked away and isolated that I've always wondered about its history.

 

The basin looks so impressive in those old Nelson Ronsheim photos, and try as I might, I don't think I've ever managed to capture the endlessness that his photos convey.

 

(Seriously, if you know anything about this place's history, please share! All my searches have turned up empty.)

There are two houses off of Ft. View Place in Mt. Adams that are only accessible via public stairs.  Their mailboxes are up on Ft. View, but you have to go down about 15-20 stairs to reach the entrance of the first home.  Very strange, but pretty cool to stumble upon.

There are two houses off of Ft. View Place in Mt. Adams that are only accessible via public stairs.  Their mailboxes are up on Ft. View, but you have to go down about 15-20 stairs to reach the entrance of the first home.  Very strange, but pretty cool to stumble upon.

 

That "indistinct" culture is due to (at least my belief anyways) just decades upon decades of disinvestment of the Urban Core.

 

You essentially have only 50K people actually living in the urban core, and more than half of those residents are incredibly low income residents. Most of the true Cincinnatians who used to live in the urban core, and used to live in Over the Rhine, and Price Hill, and Walnut Hills, and Clifton, and other Cincinnati neighborhoods during the so called "hey day" all went running to the suburbs in the late 50's and 60's, and stayed there.

 

What always surprises me is when you google Detroit, and go to google images, the first images pop up are of the ghetto's, and how deteriorated everything became. It's funny though, if you went driving around Cincinnati in the early 2000's, it really wouldn't have looked any different. Over the Rhine was a neighborhood that was being demolished bit by bit, while the other half was laying wasted and vacant. Walnut Hills was in the same boat, maybe not to that severe of an extent as OTR, but many of the buildings were (and are still today) vacant. It felt like no one gave a damn about Cincinnati, and the progress that did occur was sooooo slow (and came crashing down during the 2001 riots).

 

 

Only in the last 5 years we have had this renaissance/revival of sorts occur. I do truly believe Cincinnati is on the cusp of a "2nd" Heyday so to speak. With millennials returning back to urban living, public transportation improving, and neighborhoods returning back to there former glory (OTR, and soon Walnut Hills), I truly believe Cincinnati is on the verge of becoming held in the same respects to the national public as Austin, and Portland are.

 

 

But as far as identity and culture go. It's there, it's just not as appear ant because of the sprawl that occurred and the years of disinvestment in the urban core.

 

 

 

I will say this, and it's a bit of an aside. I was taught in History Class that Cincinnati and Chicago are very interchangeable. If the train never became popular, and canals and river boats were still the preferred method of transportation than Cincinnati would have been today's Chicago, and Chicago would have been todays Cincinnati.

 

Either way, Cincinnati has such beautiful hills and valleys, it always makes my mind to travel and wonder how Cincinnati would have looked like if it grew to the scale of Chicago. Imagine the density on those hills like Price Hill and Mount Adams, and Mount Auburn. It would have been a sight to behold.

 

There are two houses off of Ft. View Place in Mt. Adams that are only accessible via public stairs.  Their mailboxes are up on Ft. View, but you have to go down about 15-20 stairs to reach the entrance of the first home.  Very strange, but pretty cool to stumble upon.

 

Sohn St. at the end of the 300-block of Klotter also has several hills only accessible by a staircase.  They're 20-foot wide row houses in the woods that are probably headaches to do work on since contractors can't get their equipment anywhere close to them. Also, there are one or two houses on Cityview off of Ravine that you have to go up several flights of steps to reach. 

 

Conroy is an especially weird street, since it narrows to just one lane (no way for two cars to pass...people apparently just deal with it), and then Maryland in Price Hill recently reopened a dead section to permit access to its hillside blocks during reconstruction of the Waldvogel Viaduct.

 

 

 

One of the most interesting aspects of Cincinnati is that it seamlessly mixes these elements of East Coast and Great Lakes cities. Anyone who has visited the city can see it gives off a weird mixed-identity vibe ("how the hell does a place like this exist?"). Cincinnati has an insane amount of architectural diversity, particularly when it comes to housing. You've got everything from 1850-1950 in Cincy. It's pretty unique in the United States. I'd put Cincinnati near the top of in terms of architectural diversity.

 

This is the one thing that has constantly surprised me and infuriated me as I've explored the city. The developmental patterns of city neighborhoods here are so totally bizarre and I've struggled to wrap my head around how so many contradictory styles of architecture and city planning can exist in the same city. The "detached row houses" just seem so baffling to me, especially in Corryville. They're the exact same skinny houses you see down in Pendleton or elsewhere but they have sizeable side yards and huge back yards more in line with what you'd expect to see in other Great Lakes cities, interspersed with outher housing styles. It's just so weird that the layout of some of the (relatively) flatter neighborhoods didn't continue the building pattern of what you'd see in the basin. I get that a lot of it was the wealth running out to the original suburbs, but it still seems incredibly spread out in some parts, and it never really reached the point where the old stuff got torn down and replaced with denser construction.

 

I think the west side confuses me the most. You'll notice that I don't have many photos from west of the Mill Creek, and part of that is because I just can't geographically figure out that side of town at all. To even get to places like Westwood you have to travel up an incredibly long boulevard that is essentially isolated until you get to the other side of Mt Airy Forest, and it all seems so completely detached from the density down in the basin and the Mill Creek valley. I guess I would have expected these areas to have developed closer to the edge of the hillside with higher densities, but then you get into Price Hill and it's all very spread out again before fairly quickly breaking down into cul-de-sacs. It just seems so very bizarre, like it's its own little world. That said, I'm hoping to spend some more time over that way since it really is unexplored territory for me, for the most part.

 

Every neighborhood here meets other neighborhoods in such odd ways, and I think it makes Cincinnati feel very detached and eclectic simply because each neighborhood really is its own little city that happened to grow out and bump into another city that has a completely different development pattern. There really isn't anything like it, and it's led to such an incredible diversity of architecture that you're always going to find some really weird, eclectic gem hidden in the oddest place. And that's what I love the most about living here, is just how surprising it is. You can take four different routes to the same place and you'll travel through four completely different environments. It never gets old.

 

 

What you described is exactly what I feel everytime I step foot in Over the Rhine.

 

Seriously, stepping foot in Washington Park on a blue skyed spring day is a sight to behold simply because of how "other wordly" it feels like. 1 block away is downtown, yet you feel like you've stepped foot in a quaint village, completely detatched from everything else.

 

And that diversity you mentioned can even be seen in just streets in Over the Rhine. Look at each street in OTR. Elm, Pleasant, Race, Republic, Vine, etc. and just notice the diversity. The buildings, and vibe you see on Main Street is so different compared to Vine Street, and Vine Street has a different vibe and feel to Elm Street. The side streets like Republic have there own look and feel that differ compared to say another side street like Clay. Each street in OTR has it's own feel and look. It's kind of a micro look at Cincinnati as a whole.

The developmental patterns of city neighborhoods here are so totally bizarre and I've struggled to wrap my head around how so many contradictory styles of architecture and city planning can exist in the same city. The "detached row houses" just seem so baffling to me, especially in Corryville. They're the exact same skinny houses you see down in Pendleton or elsewhere but they have sizeable side yards and huge back yards more in line with what you'd expect to see in other Great Lakes cities, interspersed with outher housing styles. It's just so weird that the layout of some of the (relatively) flatter neighborhoods didn't continue the building pattern of what you'd see in the basin. I get that a lot of it was the wealth running out to the original suburbs, but it still seems incredibly spread out in some parts, and it never really reached the point where the old stuff got torn down and replaced with denser construction.

 

I was taught, though haven’t been able to find many sources, that a lot of the building spacing in Cincinnati (particularly the inner ring suburbs atop hills like CUF, Mt. Auburn, Walnut Hills, etc.) was a result of the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. It would appear that if requirements in the city changed, they lagged a few years behind because you don’t begin to see houses/parcels spaced in the way you describe until you get into the 1880s and beyond.  Though there are definitely wealthy pockets where the yards and setbacks were done by choice. Parts of Mt. Auburn and Clifton obviously fit this description. 

 

*Also, I think in historic photos, you can see a lot more density on hillsides. I do think erosion and soil issues led to a more disconnected city. I believe Pittsburgh suffered through the same. It must just be the muddy, wet Ohio River Valley terrain. That river also used to flood pretty bad.

 

Cincinnati hillsides are notorious for landslides – either rotational slumps or slow moving earthflows. They typically occur toward the bottom of slopes, where vegetation has been removed above, and natural drainage patterns have been altered (like pavement or buildings atop the hill dumping gutters or downspouts onto the hillsides). This makes foundation work prohibitively expensive, so much so that I doubt the hillsides will ever be developed(again). However, if you walk through the woods that cover most of them, you’ll find plenty of remnants of old limestone foundations, and even streets in places (around Mohawk Street).

 

Sohn St. at the end of the 300-block of Klotter also has several hills only accessible by a staircase.  They're 20-foot wide row houses in the woods that are probably headaches to do work on since contractors can't get their equipment anywhere close to them. Also, there are one or two houses on Cityview off of Ravine that you have to go up several flights of steps to reach. 

 

You can see the Sohn Street houses at the very top of the photo below. The concrete stairs that were put in in the second photo have since been removed, as have all of the houses between Sohn and the concrete wall.:

 

 

 

The Emming Street steps, a block north of Klotter, had a very isolated abandoned house (more of a shanty) halfway up the steps until 2010 or so. It was demolished at some point in 2010 or 2011 – I have no idea how they got equipment down to it.

 

Quote from: TroyEros on December 03, 2015, 06:44:53 PM

Would it be an accurate statement that Cincinnati's hilly terrain and landscape is most equivalent to San Fran?

 

I was thinking of other nearer cities, and the only one that really came to mind, that's closer is Pitsburgh.

 

Not really.  All of Cincinnati's hills reach the same height at about the same slope because the "hills" are actually the former surface of the area with the valleys having been dug out by fluvial processes.  For example, the Mill Creek Valley that I-75 follows is the former path of the Ohio River.  When you're on Spring Grove Ave. you're in the old Ohio River.

 

By comparison all of the hills and mountains in the SF area were pushed upward by tectonic pressure.  That's why SF's hills are so erratically shaped. 

 

The other big difference of course is that they were able to lay out SF in a grid.  They couldn't do that in Cincinnati on the hills because the hills are comprised of very unstable layers of sedimentary rock.  The streets have to follow the contours of the hills to a much greater extent. 

 

Cincinnati's topography is what is known as a "pena plain" (not sure of the spellling), but yes in essence it is a City of valleys giving the appearance of hills.

 

 

 

Calls to mind the name: Daniel Ransohoff.

There are two houses off of Ft. View Place in Mt. Adams that are only accessible via public stairs.  Their mailboxes are up on Ft. View, but you have to go down about 15-20 stairs to reach the entrance of the first home.  Very strange, but pretty cool to stumble upon.

 

A friend of mine owns the lowest of the houses.  It was originally the caretaker's house for the vineyard that Longworth originally had on the Mt. Adams hillsides.  I believe it is one of the oldest homes on the hill as well.  It is very funky and cool inside, having been added to on several occasions.  Has a killer deck with a great view too!

It may not be there anymore but there was a house on a paper st off of River Rd with stair only access.  http://binged.it/1LYRcyB

Portland is the better comparison, not San Francisco. Also, Cincinnati's hillsides have erosion issues. SF's do not since it's mostly solid bedrock. San Francisco's highest density is built on slopes of the hills (particularly Nob Hill). Cincinnati's hillsides don't have much density due to building losses. My guess is the hillsides in Cincy used to be dense, but erosion destroyed that. The valleys and waterfront are where SF has lost the most buildings in earthquakes. Even in 1906, many buildings in SF survived on the hills. Most of Downtown, SOMA, and the Mission District was completely decimated (these are flat areas at sea level). San Francisco is surrounded by water on three sides. The geography is completely different since it's a coastal city. Cincinnati is not. It's built on a river 600 miles from an ocean and 200 miles from a Great Lake. The two cities really are night and day. I've always felt the Ohio comparisons are odd. Housing and architecture is also quite different in Cincy. SF is mostly matchstick wooden railroad flats and large apartment buildings. Cincy has lots of East Coast-looking town homes while its most historic areas (OTR) look like Baltimore and Philly, not SF. I never saw any parallels with San Francisco. Cincy's small hills usually are made up of green, leafy trees with buildings at the top and bottom. SF's most urban fabric is on the hillsides and it's West Coast Victorian. Cincy's most urban fabric is in the basin and it's a mix of East Coast and Great Lakes cities.

 

I think there are a handful of areas in Cincy that actually do remind me of an eastern version of San Francisco - similar architecture though in the second pic not as dense and missing the ubiquitous ground floor garages (the ones that have ground floor garages btw are infill for the most part): 

 

2 areas:

 

Hollister street - http://tinyurl.com/prjhwrz

(this reminds me of some of the older hillside areas of SF though there are brick buildings you wouldn't find in there on this street)

 

Tusculum Ave - http://tinyurl.com/qyuqqss

(these are more spread out but the architecture is very similar, also go up the street and look left, there is a row of houses that are very SF)

 

There are also places in NKY and isolated in the city that have New Orleans style shotguns:

https://realtybs.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/img_0636.jpg

 

Also from what I've heard that wrought iron in OTR is the same wrought iron used in the French quarter as it was generally manufactured in Covington and sent down river.

 

Finally there is an odd architectural quirk in Cincy where there are a handful of "greystones" in OTR (I'm pretty sure its the same stone as in the Chicago grey stones as the Chicago stone is Indiana limestone from the southern part of the state) but the architecture looks different than Chicago's more ubiquitous ones, more like an NYC brownstone but with Indiana limestone instead of the stuff they got on the East coast.  One of these is mislabeled as Brownstone Apartments, it drives me nuts everytime I see the sign:

http://tinyurl.com/jkqeekk

 

One other looks pretty close to what you'd find in Chicago as I'm pretty sure its one of the later buildings in OTR:

http://tinyurl.com/zdfvjcp

 

Older greystone in Chicago (not as tall as the OTR one, but circa 1890 Cincy was a denser city as a whole than Chicago):

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/124/408819778_5cac3ce738.jpg

 

^All good examples.  I also think some of the streets in Mt. Adams give off pretty strong SF vibes (Belvedere, Fuller, Carney).

I'm so glad I'm not the only one annoyed by the "Brownstone Apartments" building's name. I want to write them a letter.

jmicha[/member]  Cincinnatians need to be schooled on their architecture.  I also really want some kind of confirmation that Cincy "Greystones" come from the same place as Chicago ones.  Logically it makes sense given the origin of the Chicago ones, but I would like some kind of confirmation from someone who has deep knowledge of this sort of thing.

jmicha[/member]  Cincinnatians need to be schooled on their architecture.  I also really want some kind of confirmation that Cincy "Greystones" come from the same place as Chicago ones.  Logically it makes sense given the origin of the Chicago ones, but I would like some kind of confirmation from someone who has deep knowledge of this sort of thing.

 

There are a lot of sources that will confirm various buildings in Cincinnati used Bedford Limestone (Carew Tower being the most notable). I don't know if there are any sources about the various smaller buildings that used limestone but I'd be surprised if it wasn't quarried in the same area - that limestone was used all over the country.

Love the photos BigDipper 80!  Thank you!

 

My mother grew up on Dorsey Street in Mt. Auburn during the early part of the 20th C.  She said Sycamore Street leading up from Liberty was lined with houses on both sides.  I've often wondered why nearly all of the ones on the eastern side of Sycamore are gone now, but I suspect erosion may be the culprit.