noirish Los Angeles

[ethereal_reality]

Yet another sepia photograph from ebay, this time with the date.


OK, what is that on the sidewalk that looks like a gurney with white sheets?
__

Thanks for the information on the Moneta-Manchester Tract GW.

[3940dxer]

Originally Posted by ethereal_reality

Two Chinese girls cross Alameda Street during the 1902 Feast of the Dead. (view is looking north)


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/
__

That's a wonderful photo! Now, my friend Joe and I wonder whether the building behind the adults might be the current home of Phillipes. Here's a then and now that I posted last year. (On these two the point of view is from around the corner on Ord, of course.) Any thoughts?

[gemnewt]

Nope, Sorry the only thing that happens after I click on print screen
then right click my mouse is a little 1"x1" see through screen with a
plus sign in the bottom right corner and then the picture zooms in.
Maybe you have a computer more advance than mine, I bought this
HP Envy H8-1534 PC with a AMD Six-Core FX-6200 Processor, 10GB
DDR3 System Memory, 1.5 TB Hard Drive, AMD Radeon HD7570
Graphics Card, Intergrated Bluetooth 4.0 Windows 8. I have no
idea what all that means, can you tell by what I just typed if my
computer will do what you explained to me in your post?
If not no big deal I'll be happy with what everyone else posts,
It would be nice to contribute from time to time.
Thanks For Your Time and
Gene

Originally Posted by ethereal_reality

11348 Nebraska Avenue. -it's one of the few homes left in an area inundated with newer apartment buildings.

GSV

gemnewt, hit the 'print screen' key (upper right hand side on keyboard), then left click 'paint' in your on-screen start menu (the 'paint' program will open up a new window showing a blank), then hit Ctrl and V at the same time and the photograph should come up, and then you can right click. -microsoft

Perhaps there's an easier way. Anyone?

[Flyingwedge]

This residential development is bounded by Pico Blvd. on the north, Venice Blvd. on the south, Crenshaw Blvd. on the east, and West Blvd. on the west:

Google Maps

Here's the area in 1903; the future Victoria Park is in the area owned by Herbert Nadeau above the RR tracks -- along which 16th Street/Venice Blvd. will run -- and below the street (Pico) at the top of the map:

Historic Mapworks -- http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/...+De+La+Tijera/

Development plans were underway by 1910:


Jan 23 1910 LA Herald at LOC -- http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lc...arRange&page=1

1918 aerial view looking east. The intersection of Crenshaw and Pico is in the upper left corner of the photo; Crenshaw and Venice is in the upper right corner:

USC Digital Library -- http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/si.../id/6100/rec/1

1940 aerial view looking north:

USC Digital Library -- http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/si.../id/3717/rec/2

4426 Victoria Park Place, 1928:

USC Digital Library -- http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/co...id/23305/rec/3

4426 Victoria Park Place, 2011:

GSV

4311 Victoria Park Place, the 1911-built Holmes-Shannon House, is on the National Register of Historic Places and is Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument #885:
2008 photo @ Wikimedia commons -- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...nnon_House.jpg

Interior photos of 4311 Victoria Park Place, plus other Victoria Park homes, at Kansas Sebastian's Flickr page:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kansas_...th/3511086805/

[CityBoyDoug]

Originally Posted by GaylordWilshire

Well, CBD, I'm not sure which Google you're using, but 11384 Nebraska on mine indicates the house ER found.... Which may or may not be the actual structure that Monroe's Aunt Anna supposedly lived in in 1947, and whose address was apparently used on the contract.

To the east across the alley is 11334 Nebraska, a small apartment building that looks a though there's a chance it could have been there in 1947--a site called thisismarilyn.comhas a picture of 11334 and claims that it's 11348, despite the "34" being clearly visible.

11334:


The red dot indicates 11384 on my Google...

My information about that address comes from the 1952 Historic Aerial photo which shows completely different buildings at both addresses.

I believe Thisismarilyn dot com is giving out some bogus info.

We recently had USC giving out error info on photos. They were saying a house was located in Bellflower when it was actually located in Bell Gardens.

On my Google it shows the large apartment building by the alley at 11348. Its likely that the large apartment building has gobbled up several addresses, which often happens when there were previously several numbers at that site.

There's always a lot of confusion in the End Times.

GE

[CityBoyDoug]

Originally Posted by gemnewt

Nope, Sorry the only thing that happens after I click on print screen
then right click my mouse is a little 1"x1" see through screen with a
plus sign in the bottom right corner and then the picture zooms in.
Maybe you have a computer more advance than mine, I bought this
HP Envy H8-1534 PC with a AMD Six-Core FX-6200 Processor, 10GB
DDR3 System Memory, 1.5 TB Hard Drive, AMD Radeon HD7570
Graphics Card, Intergrated Bluetooth 4.0 Windows 8. I have no
idea what all that means, can you tell by what I just typed if my
computer will do what you explained to me in your post?
If not no big deal I'll be happy with what everyone else posts,
It would be nice to contribute from time to time.
Thanks For Your Time and
Gene

Gene: use these instructions for how to take a screen print capture.

http://www.wikihow.com/Take-a-Screen...rosoft-Windows

[ethereal_reality]

I realize that we've seen numerous images of the famous Temple Block here on noirish Los Angeles.

This photograph, that I found on ebay in June, features large awnings that I don't recall seeing before (I could be wrong).




-reverse of photo.

__

[GaylordWilshire]

Originally Posted by Flyingwedge

This residential development is bounded by Pico Blvd. on the north, Venice Blvd. on the south, Crenshaw Blvd. on the east, and West Blvd. on the west:

Google Maps

A few priors:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ostcount=13530

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ostcount=13531

[ethereal_reality]

Originally Posted by CityBoyDoug

On my Google it shows the large apartment building by the alley at 11348. Its likely that the large apartment building has gobbled up several addresses, which often happens when there were previously several numbers at that site.

There's always a lot of confusion in the End Times.

GE

I get this CBD.

GE



GSV
__

[CityBoyDoug]

Originally Posted by ethereal_reality

I get this CBD.

__

There are older versions of Google Earth. Its a bit blurry but I checked this link below. My version of Google Earth and Historic Aerials compare exactly. Are you using the updated version of Google earth?

http://www.historicaerials.com/

[GaylordWilshire]

Not sure how this is much use. None of the Marilyn foamers on the internet can seem to agree about the exact spot either. I realized while poking around that I really don't care where Marilyn Monroe lived, so I'll just settle for somewhere in the vicinity of Nebraska Avenue.

[GaylordWilshire]

Originally Posted by Chuckaluck

LA Times July 10, 1920

[ProphetM]

Originally Posted by GaylordWilshire

Not sure how this is much use. None of the Marilyn foamers on the internet can seem to agree about the exact spot either. I realized while poking around that I really don't care where Marilyn Monroe lived, so I'll just settle for somewhere in the vicinity of Nebraska Avenue.

Los Angeles County GIS was able to sort this out:

http://gis.planning.lacounty.gov/GIS...ic/Viewer.html

The apartment building at 11334 Nebraska was built in 1962 and must have swallowed up whatever previously existed at 11348. The house next door is 11356.

[belmont bob]

[QUOTE=3940dxer;6258527]Walking around the Plaza yesterday I couldn't help but notice these "cages", which protect young trees that are planted along the sidewalk. Coincidence, or...?



If you zoom in close on the photo you can see the sidewalk concrete is solid, no breaks, no dirt no planter. I tried Googling sidewalk stand, bracket, grille, support - grasping at straws and came up with nothing.

[belmont bob]

Originally Posted by GaylordWilshire

There were two similarly named residential tracts near the corner of Moneta--now south Broadway--and Manchester, one within the city limits (above Manchester) and one below. The McCarthy Co marketed the one above (the "Moneta Manchester and Main St Tract"), the Standard Building Investment Co a similar one (the "Moneta-Manchester Bungalow Tract") outside of the city limits of the time (ca 1910). Both tracts had east-west streets that didn't quite match up with their continuations beyond their north-south street boundaries, as seen in ER's pic. Hard to tell for certain, but I'd say that this is the 200 block of West 86th Place or West 87th St in the Standard Building tract, probably east from Broadway. Not much today ads up other than the size of the bungalows, of which there are quite a few, many apparently now 100 years old.

Standard Building also had its "Standard Place Tract" just to the south of its first bungalow tract--the Harbor Freeway now plows directly through it.


And if all that isn't fascinating enough, I came across an old building about 15 blocks north along Moneta/Broadway--one that still stands with little its size nearby. I'm always fascinated to fins telephone poles in the same position--the one at far left, for instance. The wood can't have lasted nearly a century, can it have? Even in Southern California? Anyone know the answer to what everyone wants to know--how long do phone poles last?


LAPL

GSV

I suppose since I work for Southern California Edison (not for much longer though!!) I should know the answer to the question. But I don’t, other than to say, because they are made out of old trees, each has its own life expectancy. There are wood pole replacement programs that are ongoing because the poles do deteriorate.
Among the various utilities in the area, where overhead lines are present most are covered by a joint pole agreement so everyone shares the same poles thus reducing the number. Electricity is always on top, with phone and cable under for obvious reasons. The sharing complicates pole replacement as one might imagine because everyone has to move their lines. In places where the power lines get removed and buried, we cut the top of the pole off above the other lines.
Every time we have a need to add new lines every pole along the route is inspected to be sure it is capable of bearing additional load. And if not those individual poles are replaced. Where SCE sometimes gets in trouble is when the other users add new lines and we don’t know about them. This proved to be a big problem a year or two ago when heavy winds and toppled trees broke many poles in the Temple City area. Because the biggest impact was the loss of power, we took the hit from politicians and the media.
It’s hard to believe but a major cause of pole failure is woodpeckers.
BTW, we choose to refer to them as power poles, not phone poles… We have to put the power lines up high enough to keep the phone company guys from killing themselves.

[Those Who Squirm!]

For once I like the "today" view better, though it might be more due to the cameras used and light conditions at the time. The contemporary view looks cleaner and more built-up in a good way; in 1977 it seems the air was dirtier and the streetscape more decimated by either street-level asphalt parking lots or just vacant lots (can't really tell).

Originally Posted by ethereal_reality

Figueroa Street, downtown Los Angeles 1977.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/32196921@N06/6240780919/

....and today.


google street view

[Those Who Squirm!]

Originally Posted by fhammon

If you go this address via Google streetview, you'll notice that maybe one or both of the houses are still present but much altered. I could be wrong but the two house I'm seeing should be old enough. It's possible that the featured house burned down a decade or so after it was built.

There must have been some renumbering over the past century, because 2203 Rogers no longer exists as an address. Today the house on the NE corner is at 720 Chicago and the next house on the north side of Rogers is 2215. Numerous houses in the area have build or effective build dates from the nineteen-aughts but generally a year or two after the purported date of the photographs. Clearly this is an interesting neighborhood for local historians, and one that doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. It's a mystery to be sure; a new and larger parcel often replaces several small contiguous house lots, but the house in the picture looks at least as big as anything on the street today. Still the writing on the back does say it's this intersection. It's not unheard of for personal snapshots to be labeled years after the fact; I wonder if there could have been a slight error in either the year or the address, or both?

[Lwize]

ebay


I'm sorry, but these folks are looking into the camera lens, and they're all dead, some long since dead. It creeps me out a bit.

[Those Who Squirm!]

From the parcel map I think 2203 Rogers Avenue must have been swallowed up by the NE corner lot currently numbered 720 S Chicago. From that map and Google it appears there are now four separately standing bungalows, all built in the late 1910s and one or two dwelling units each. This would explain why 2203 no longer exists and also why the next house on Rogers Ave -- the "house behind the house"--is 2215 when we would otherwise expect a smaller "jump" in the house numbering. At least as far back as 1909, from that year's city directory, this has always been the 2200 block of Rogers Avenue, so there wasn't any renumbering.

A build date of 1901 is given so it all fits. I am surprised, however, that the square footage is listed as 1820. I'm lousy at estimating the square footage of a house from looking at its picture, but I did think it would be roomier inside.

Originally Posted by fhammon

Yes. I see it now. I was looking on the wrong side of the street. Here's a shot of the "house behind the house" identifiable by the diamond shaped attic vents.
That's a nice looking Craftsman but it can't be too much older than the Victorian. 20 years max. maybe.
Seems a shame since in the photo, the featured house looks brand new without even proper landscaping yet. The people were obviously proud of it.





ETA.
I just noticed the vacant lot next to the Victorian between the two houses in the photo. The Craftsman could have been built at any time after they became fashionable.

[ProphetM]

Originally Posted by Those Who Squirm

There must have been some renumbering over the past century, because 2203 Rogers no longer exists as an address. Today the house on the NE corner is at 720 Chicago and the next house on the north side of Rogers is 2215. Numerous houses in the area have build or effective build dates from the nineteen-aughts but generally a year or two after the purported date of the photographs. Clearly this is an interesting neighborhood for local historians, and one that doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. It's a mystery to be sure; a new and larger parcel often replaces several small contiguous house lots, but the house in the picture looks at least as big as anything on the street today. Still the writing on the back does say it's this intersection. It's not unheard of for personal snapshots to be labeled years after the fact; I wonder if there could have been a slight error in either the year or the address, or both?

Los Angeles GIS NET to the rescue again! 2215 Rogers Ave. (the house next door) was built in 1901, and as mentioned the distinctive diamond-shaped opening under the roof peak makes it clear that the current house is the same next-door neighbor as in the old photo.

The corner lot is now filled with 4 buildings - a single family house faces Rogers at #2209, two duplexes face Chicago St., and a third duplex sits in the back corner. The craftsman house on Rogers was built in 1912, two duplexes were built in 1915 and the third one was built in 1918. So the big beautiful house in the old photo has been gone for at least 95 years. I'm not sure if the space between the two houses in the old photo is large enough for the craftsman, or if the big house on the corner was more in the middle of the total available space. Looking at the duplex on the corner today, it doesn't seem to me like there is enough space there to fit the old house.