PHOTOS: Cincinnati’s Dramatic, Decade-Long Transformation Visualized

The changes that have been taking place in Cincinnati over the past decade have been felt and noticed by many. There is a palpable buzz surrounding the Queen City these days.

The city’s central riverfront has almost entirely been transformed following billions of dollars worth of public and private investment, Over-the-Rhine’s renaissance continues to be touted nation-wide as one to be admired, and thousands of more residential units are being developed in the center city as we speak.

For those who live outside the city and may not have been back recently, or for those out-of-towners who have not yet been able to make a visit, it could be difficult to even recognize some places now.

Thanks to a new feature from Google Street View, we can now go back in time and compare Google’s most current Street View images with those they have taken since 2007 when they started the service.

Here’s a look at some of Cincinnati’s more visually impressive transformations, but it is certainly not all encompassing. Simply drag the arrow bar back-and-forth to compare the old and new images.

Clifton Heights at W. McMillan Avenue and Ohio Avenue:

Clifton Heights in September 2007
Clifton Heights in September 2012

 

Evanston at Dana Avenue and St. Francis Way (formerly Woodburn Avenue):

Xavier University September 2007
Xavier University August 2012

 

Over-the-Rhine looking south on Vine Street near Fifteenth Street:

Vine Street September 2007
Vine Street June 2012

 

Over-the-Rhine looking north on Vine Street near Fourteenth Street:

Vine St September 2007
Vine St June 2012

 

The Banks at Freedom Way and Walnut Street:

The Banks July 2007
The Banks September 2012

 

Smale Riverfront Park along Mehring Way at Main Street:

Smale Riverfront Park July 2007
Smale Riverfront Park August 2012

 

Avondale on Burnet Avenue near Northern Avenue:

Mt. Auburn September 2007
Mt. Auburn June 2012

 

Columbia Tusculum at Delta Avenue and Columbia Parkway:

Columbia Tusculum August 2007
Columbia Tusculum June 2012

 

College Hill on Hamilton Avenue near Elkton Place:

College Hill August 2007
College Hill September 2013

If you are having difficultly viewing both the before and after images, try to just drag the arrow bar back-and-forth instead of clicking on the images in an attempt to reveal the after.

And for what it’s worth, we totally stole the idea for this post from The Washington Post. What other areas did we miss? Let us know in the comment section.

  • EDG

    GA Tower, new Mariemont condos on Miami Rd at Lane L

  • Jules Michael Rosen

    65 West was a mistake. The building that was already there was much more interesting architecturally and probably could have been developed into just as many units.

    • Cody Tim Rush-Ossenbeck

      If you think that was a mistake, look at the other demolitions Uptown is responsible for. They are a terrible steward of our historic buildings.

    • Jules Michael Rosen

      The ones on Euclid were some of the worst IMO.

  • http://j-taylor.net/ Jason Everett Taylor

    I would love to see a page of nothing but OTR, then send it to people who still don’t believe that dramatic changes have happened.

    • http://www.UrbanCincy.com/ Randy A. Simes

      The changes displayed here of Vine Street are really jaw dropping. I wanted to include more of other streets in OTR, but it just didn’t work out due to Google either not having new or old enough imagery.

    • Justin

      I couldn’t agree with your sentiment more. I moved to, OTR, the last weekend of March, many friends and family members still think I am crazy and continuously tell me I need to buy a gun yada yada. Then they come down and see it for themselves and are in shock.

  • RyanLammi

    The Google Street View car has been driving around lately. Hopefully we get some updated imagery soon. I saw it on Vine last week.

  • http://markvaughn.com/ Mark Vaughn

    Anyone else having trouble viewing the After images? (Firefox 29.0.1 on Win 7)

    • Lisa Rothwell Stewart

      I’m using Chrome and I can’t see the After images either. I click and nothing happens. :-(

    • http://www.UrbanCincy.com/ Randy A. Simes

      That’s really strange. You shouldn’t need to click anything specific. There is a slider on the image and you merely drag that slider back and forth to view both images.

    • cinserious

      Yes. Trust Randy. The slider works! I’m living proof!

    • Guest

      Yes, not working for me, either. Also using Chrome.

  • Chas Wiederhold

    Quite obviously, I think the the Calhoun/McMillan corridor is missing from this.

    • EDG

      Wasn’t done in 2012

    • Chas Wiederhold

      Ah ha. Woops.

    • http://www.UrbanCincy.com/ Randy A. Simes

      Right. I looked at that and there wasn’t a new enough Street View that would capture the changes there. In fact, this was an issue in many locations that I wanted to include.

  • Kris Vladimirov

    I see astonishing improvements. It’s very impressive. However, I still prefer suburban life.

    • EDG

      Greenfield development is a more drastic change than infill/redevelopment. Sure suburban living can be idyllic, until what you thought was your “backyard” is cleared for the next phase of a subdivision.

    • Kris Vladimirov

      Well, you don’t own that land, so that’s not “your” backyard. Suburban living still provides much more bang for the buck. You still have a backyard. You can’t get that in the city. In some places, you can’t even get a patio.

    • http://travisestell.com/ Travis

      Most of the readers of this site prefer to live in areas where they have everything they need nearby — arts and cultural activities, dining, entertainment venues, their workplace, shopping, etc. Most of them also prefer to walk, bike, or take transit instead of having to drive everywhere. And finally, they prefer more unique establishments and small businesses over chains and big box stores.

      So, I think the vast majority of readers of this site would disagree with you, when you say that suburbs offer “more bang for the buck.” In fact, most would say that the opposite is true.

    • TimSchirmang

      The urban-suburban exchange is really fascinating. Where is the divide though, where’s the line? Are both sides talking about the same thing when they say suburb and suburban? For anyone on the urbancincy team, can you help me understand the urbanist’s view on this? Or by way of example, when do I hit a suburb leaving the city on Gilbert/Montgomery/22/3: walnut hills? Evanston? Nor wood? Pleasant ridge? Kenwood? Montgomery? Further? What about up 27/127: North side? College Hill? Mt. Healthy? Further?

    • http://www.UrbanCincy.com/ Randy A. Simes

      Most all of the places you list here would be considered First Ring Suburbs or Inner-Ring Suburbs. They are essentially America’s first example of suburbanization as we know it today. With that said, those neighborhoods in no way compare to the monstrosities we construct today in suburbia, which often lacks connecting streets, sidewalks, street lights, any transit service, neighborhood schools or libraries, or neighborhood business districts.

      So yeah, while many neighborhoods in the City of Cincinnati would technically be considered as suburban neighborhoods, they are a far cry from what most urbanists decry when discussing suburbia.

    • Kris Vladimirov

      We have a word for those areas that urbanists are erroneously calling suburbs – rural.

    • Jules Michael Rosen

      Kris, your idea that
      you have to live outside the city to have a yard, low crime, good schools, etc.
      is flawed. Case in point, Hyde Park and Mount Lookout. Sure, Glendale and
      Montgomery offer some of these amenities, but they are not dense enough to make
      walkability an option for everyone living there and because of their proximity
      to job centers/shopping, they are reliant upon car-based lifestyles. This type
      of lifestyle is not only destroying the planet, but making Americans obese and
      miserable and has basically destroyed the sense of community that walkable
      neighborhoods once had. In addition, parks abound in Cincinnati. There are
      three within a few blocks of my apartment, and I live Downtown. People pay a
      premium for houses in Hyde Park and Mount Lookout, because you are paying for a
      lifestyle that includes accessibility to Downtown/Pill Hill via bus and bike,
      etc., the architectural character that comes with a historic place (and is generally
      absent in vynil-clad suburbs), vibrant restaurants, shops, etc. within walking
      distance, parks where parents and children can play, and good schools. Some of
      the suburbs offer some of these amenities, but it is not on the scale that you
      can find inside the city, and, when present, does not encompass the entire
      community nor allow for a car-free lifestyle.

    • matimal

      Help us understand the ‘suburban view’ tim. Do suburbanites realize they are massively subsidized? Do they know they would pay thousands more a year in taxes of various kinds if they actually had to pay the costs of the roads they use? http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees-pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending.
      The more road you use, the more subsidized you are.

    • TimSchirmang

      Sure matimal. The suburbs are great…small bungalow in east hyde park, 7 minute commute to the office by foot, (10 if the sidewalk is busy). Small yard, maybe a tenth of an acre, but big enough I can get my hands in the earth every now and then. It’s good for you.

      Nice mix of neighbors, but we’re not on top of each other all the time.

      The no. 11 bus gets us downtown in 20 minutes when we’re in the mood for a reds game or something at music hall or a beer at half cut. You’re right though, the $4 round trip is probably subsidized.

      We’re looking forward to the day we can send our kids to a great neighborhood public school, and take them up the hill to Ault park or the observatory.

      We’re very lucky in the ‘burbs – plenty of access to queen city gems but also the chance to escape the noise and digital smog of the 21st century.

    • matimal

      In the context of of Modern economics and politics, East Hyde Park isn’t the burbs.

    • TimSchirmang

      Sorry I can’t give you the Mason mcmansion, drive-two-hummers-to-work,view matimal.

    • matimal

      Suburban means politically, fiscally, and operationally separate from the most important political jurisdiction in a metro region, not the Hollywood vision of sloping lawns and big garages. Suburbs exist to shield people from the costs of cities while reaping the benefits of cities, i.e. getting something for nothing. That’s the issue here, not aesthetics.

    • TimSchirmang

      Ok. Covington? Norwood? Colerain Twp? Indian Hill? Lebanon? Dayton?

      Which are suburbs? Which ones allow residents to get something for nothing?

    • http://www.UrbanCincy.com/ Randy A. Simes

      Well most townships do not have their own police department, or they have a very minimal force that has been offset by county patrols. This was in the news in recent years because it was found that these townships were literally getting free police service.

      In Butler County, the City of Hamilton has an extensive park system. One that for years has been taken advantage of by surrounding suburban areas that were either unwilling or able to build and maintain their own, or pay an additional fee to help pay their fair share.

      The same is true for most cultural institutions. Where are all the museums, libraries and academic institutions largely located? In the city. But right now the largest area tax we have is at the county level. Are you telling me that people outside of Hamilton County in the Cincinnati region don’t use the museums, professional sports, etc?

      Finally, the same is true for transit service. Metro is in a tough position because in order to run an effective bus network, they should provide some express commuter routes to/from the suburbs. Ideally, they would do even more than that so that workers in the city could more easily get to jobs in the suburbs, but right now it’s pretty much just set up to accommodate commuters from the suburbs heading into the city. But while this is technically a “regional” transit system, not one other jurisdiction besides the City of Cincinnati provides any dedicated revenue stream for Metro.

    • TimSchirmang

      Not entirely following how these identify which suburbs are getting a free ride from the city, but I’ll take a swing anyway:

      My understanding is that Ohio policing is funded and serviced primarily at the county level, with municipalities and other subjurisdictions able to fund and add their own police layer if they want. Cincinnatians pay for and get a robust additional layer of policing, and I can’t point to any local townships that mooch off CPD.

      I’m unfamiliar with Hamilton’s park system but I’ll bet they have a solid charitable foundation helping fund it. Most all park systems do. We should thank those individuals who pony up to keep parks, including our own, so accessible.

      Folks coming into the county or city to enjoy cultural institutions or sports contribute to a lot of retail and restaurant jobs and taxes while here. What are you suggesting Randy, hit them with a toll on their way in?

      The metro system, a lot of people all over the city pay for it but don’t use it. The state and feds also kick in a sizable chunk.

    • matimal

      Your describing rounding errors in the finances of our region. The costs of expressways on which suburbs depend, but Cincinnati does not, are astronomical. I-275 alone has costs billions. You wouldn’t build a circle highway unless you had something to circle around in the first place. This issue is so basic I don’t know how to describe it without sounding facetious.

    • TimSchirmang

      I’m pretty sure we’ve covered this point in other posts. Reread the history of expressways or better yet look at a map. 95% of all expressway miles have nothing to do with suburbs, and everything to do with connecting cities with one another for one reason – commerce: Moving goods, material, and people quickly and efficiently. Every city of any size in America has at least one interstate (or equivalent grade separated highway) connecting it to the rest of the economy, and a city would utterly fail if it chose to try to survive independent of the highway system.

      The expense of highway repair is overwhelmingly attributable to truck traffic, not susie soccer mom’s minivan driving circles around 275.

    • matimal

      You’ve got expressways backwards. They were SUPPOSED to connect cities, but in fact are more important in facilitating suburban commuting. The increased value of real estate due to expressway access is far larger than the value of interstate truck shipping.

    • matimal

      All of them to varying degrees. The largest municipalities in American metros always subsidize surrounding municipalities and townships. That’s why surrounding municipalities and townships exist. If they hadn’t been able to improve their financial position by forming a separate municipality, they’ve wouldn’t have and if they had been able to do so by joining the main municipality they would have done that instead. This is all rational self-interest. No wild-eyed ideologies or conspiracy theories here, Tim. This is just how America works. I could recommend some good histories on the topic if you care to read more.

    • TimSchirmang

      Is there a practical policy implication or is this just a baseline ‘the sky is blue’ kind of thing?

    • matimal

      Are you asking how do we make American local government more sustainable? If so, the answer is to end all of the subsidies that suburbs have extracted over the years. Drivers have to pay for the roads they use, parents have to pay the costs of their children’s schools. mortgage holders have to pay the true cost of their mortgages, water and sewer users have to pay the true costs of the water and were service they receive, etc. Currently foreign bond holders pay as much toward American roads as the Americans who actually use them. If all these subsidies ended, American cities would be much denser than they are and we wouldn’t be having this debate.
      For an example, look at Canadian cities. They have no mortgage interest deductions or Fannie Mae and roads are funded out of gas taxes alone. Even the newest Canadian suburb is built at three, four, or five times the density of American suburbs and new development happens immediately adjacent to existing development because they have to cover their own costs.

    • TimSchirmang

      Alright, so a sky is blue sort of thing.

    • matimal

      nope. the sky is naturally blue and will always be. American suburbs have avoided their share of the cost of american metros through the conscious actions of human beings and will not always be able to do so. the sky just is, american local government is not natural or inevitable in any way.

    • http://travisestell.com/ Travis

      There are lots of policies that could be implemented if there was the political will to do so. For example, the majority of economists on both sides of the political spectrum agree that the home mortgage interest tax deduction is illogical and should be eliminated. However none of our current political leadership from either major party is willing to propose this.

    • cinserious

      @Tim, You are definitely NOT in the suburbs by any means. You do have a great mix of city culture without the cramped spaces though. If your young and single or without kids, downtown or Mt Adams or Eden Park are great places. If your starting a family, Hyde Park or Oakley offer wonderful opportunities.
      As far as public elementary schools for your kids, your gravy. Middle School, you might need to think about parochial, I don’t know how it is now days. When I went to high school at Withrow (formerly Eastside H.S.) back in the 90’s, it was cool and with lots of opportunities but kind of rough around the edges still. From what I understand, its a lot more structured and focused now. Lots of newe development and hope.
      It would be absolutely awesome if people from Hyde Park actually started sending their kids to Withrow H.S. and reverse the trend of avoiding it because its an inner city school. You would be surprised at the quality of the staff and education received. Many different programs offered for college prep. I had some very influential and inspiring teachers at Withrow that I have never forgotten about. Trust me, I know high quality educators. I went to the best private elementary school in Cincinnati and one of the best public H.S./ jr High in the country, let alone the Cincy area before attending Withrow.
      As the older generation Cincinnatians fade away, a new, more open minded approach will surface and realize that while we live in this nice Hyde Park community, we still pay taxes to support the public schools. Why not show our true and full support by sending our kids to their local H.S. and demanding a high quality education.

    • EDG

      Not all suburbs/subdivisions are created equal. The cutoff is WWII, when businessman suburb (hyde park), garden city (mariemont) and other town planning ideals were lost to growth and modernism became the focus.

    • TimSchirmang

      @matimal:disqus, @disqus_jUJnp0HmTh:disqus, @cinserious:disqus The point I’m driving at (or maybe I should say publicly-transitting towards) is that the urban-suburban discussion often overlooks a gray area in between. I hear urbanists talk about how horrible a backyard is and how if you don’t use rail-based transit you’re a subsidized, environmental monster. The term ‘sustainable, walkable place’ has been co-opted by urbanists as exclusive to the urban core, and only possible outside the core if form-based codes are implemented.

      The urban planning crowd turns off an enormous segment of the population by generalizing/assuming that non-urban-core living is the same as the stereotypical neighborhood on Weeds. I hang out in east hyde park thinking I already have 90% of the benefits that urbanists lobby public policy makers for and ask taxpayers to fund. I look around Cincinnati and think there are a lot of similarly situated people kept from the table by this sharp and unwelcome dichotomy.

      The practical consequences are born out in projects like the streetcar. If Cincinnati doesn’t have many/any ‘suburbs’ (of the monstrous post-war type) but instead has many neighborhoods with the amenities urbanists push for (walkability, thriving business districts, etc), where do all the voters come from that oppose this movement? It points to an irrational and isolating component in the message of proponents of the urban core. A slightly more sophisticated and inclusive approach would go a long long way towards accomplishing more planning objectives. Just a thought.

      Just one example:
      @RandyASimes:disqus is disgusted with the idea of a backyard like it’s a garden of infectious disease. That’s fine on an individual level, but as a thought leader in Cincinnati’s urban planning community his comment does a disservice by alienating all the folks who enjoy a patch of grass of their own.

    • http://travisestell.com/ Travis

      You’re trying to put words in other peoples’ mouths.

      I don’t want to have a back yard. But that doesn’t mean I think people are evil if they do want to have a back yard.

      I think it’s great that people have choices about they type of place that they want to live. But if people actually had to pay the true costs of living where they live, I suspect a lot of people out in the exurbs would chose to live closer to urban core.

    • http://www.UrbanCincy.com/ Randy A. Simes

      I think I made my position perfectly clear in my original response to your question. In fact, I thought you and I were in agreement.

      You’re right in that my lack of interest in a backyard is my personal opinion. Sure, there are some pointed reasons for it, but it largely revolves around the fact that I don’t see the need or have the desire to own a patch of grass that I must maintain. I’d rather spend my money and time on something else. If designed well, however, houses can be built with yards and still exist within walkable neighborhoods, which is exactly what I said in response to you originally.

    • TimSchirmang

      You did make it clear and we are in agreement. And I completely defend your choice about your living situation. I was using the back and forth between Kris and Travis, regarding suburbs, to raise a broader point I’ve done before – that the way urbanists tend to frame the discussion is too exclusive to the urban core and too ignoring of, and even alienating towards, the supporting exurb districts – districts that are remarkably similar already to the goal of sustainable, walkable cities.

      I and a lot of other folks agree with many urbanist goals but get frustrated and turned away by narrow mindedness and an inability by some urbanists to get out of their own way.

    • Neil Clingerman

      JakcobEPeters brought up a very good example of the kind of neighborhood where you live and how its compatible with the urban experience. Old line suburbs built prior to WWII are perfectly alright even by most urbanists even if not all want to live there – heck in some parts of the country neighborhoods built in the 30s-50s are still pretty darn urban (look at west LA for instance – in spite of its dependence on the automobile the reinstating of transit would be easy there – there are some very dense nodes though most people still have yards and a car) the stuff that we tend to get the most upset by is the post war development, particularly that which was developed after the 1960s when grid street development gave way to the modern tangled street mess that we have today.

    • Kris Vladimirov

      Thank you for being logical. What urbanists claim as perks only attained by living downtown — walk, bike, or take transit, unique establishments and small businesses over chains — can all be also attained in other “suburban” neighborhoods. Glendale and Montgomery exemplify that.

    • Kris Vladimirov

      You can disagree with me all you want. I can’t FORCE you to be right haha.

      The city blows. You have higher crime rates and pollution from all the traffic. You have to dangerously walk around traffic (and we all know how obedient some people are) and constantly get harassed by begging bums. If you have children, there are fewer opportunities in the city for them to run around outside and play than in the suburbs. And lastly, the real bang for the buck is in regards to housing. Want a garage? Big yard? Pool? Good luck finding all that in city for less than a million.

      You WISH the opposite were true.

    • http://travisestell.com/ Travis

      Kris, why do you feel the need to come to a website that is all about urban issues and try to convince us that urban areas “blow” and suburbs are better? Just trying to be a troll?

    • Kris Vladimirov

      I didn’t. YOU did.

      I came to the website to rejoice about the aesthetic improvements the city has made. You replied with a paragraph about how my OPINION about suburbia is WRONG.

    • http://travisestell.com/ Travis

      Please point to where I said you were wrong. All I said is that 99% of the readers of this side will disagree with you. And that the amenities you care about are completely different than the amenities that most of the rest of us care about.

    • Kris Vladimirov

      And? What did I do… besides offer a rebuttal for all of those so-called “advantages” you mentioned? I didn’t start it. You city lovers just started bashing suburban living, because I mentioned my personal preferences. I don’t give a shit where you live dude. I just said I liked the big improvements.

    • http://www.UrbanCincy.com/ Randy A. Simes

      I never want to own a backyard. Never.

    • Kris Vladimirov

      Some people prefer smog and concrete over trees and clean air. That’s alright, bro.

    • http://www.UrbanCincy.com/ Randy A. Simes

      I think you are vastly over simplifying the reality. Just because you have trees and a yard doesn’t necessarily make it clean. And just because you don’t have a yard doesn’t mean you have nothing but smog and concrete.

      Case in point, most jobs are not located in the suburbs. So that means those who live in the suburbs must commute to work, often in their car. So while you’re stuck in traffic sucking in exhaust fumes and increasing your stress levels, someone in the city is taking a leisurely walk to work getting exercise and breathing in fresh air in the process.

      One of the reasons I do not particularly like suburbia is because the benefits one person receives are at the expense of another. This negative externalities are not typically realized in the cost of living in suburbia, and I have a problem with that. If you want a own a piece of nature, a yard, two-car garage, and commute in/out of the city each day, then fine. But you should pay more for doing so since those decisions are damaging the environment and straining our infrastructure.

    • matimal

      Some prefer social isolation and thousands in car expenses, some don’t. To each his own. Only those who prefer car expenses don’t pay anything like the true costs of their ‘choice’. http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pay-only-third-state-local-road-spending

    • matimal

      It all depends on the “bang” you want. A piece of turf that requires hours of care and that I’ll never use is a dud, not a bang for me.

    • JacobEPeters

      I think it’s the bang of the combustion engine that is required to get to basic services.

    • Kris Vladimirov

      No, the bang is in respect to size.

      A suburban home will cost you less than one of comparable size in the
      city, AND suburban homes are larger and have more amenities.

    • JacobEPeters

      I was making a joke, through which I was trying to highlight the comment of the person above. Amenities are subjective. To some, a two car garage is an amenity, to others it is a burden of extra space I have to maintain but will rarely use on a functional basis. To some, a diverse commercial street 3 blocks from your door is an amenity, to others it is enough to disturb their high standards for “peace and quiet”.

    • Kris Vladimirov

      I agree with you. It’s subjective, so I don’t understand why you all were so quick to bash suburbia.

    • Guest

      Safe? Good school district? Not overrun by hoodlums? All of the above? Okay… cheap? No?! Of course.

      No, you can’t.

    • JacobEPeters

      not to bash suburbia, but the monotony and lack of livability that single use auto oriented suburban single family housing creates. I grew up in a single family house on a tree lined street, with a backyard, it was not 100% urban. BUT it was 2 blocks from public transit, a 2 minute walk from a large public park (with a multi-use path that led to a forest preserve nearby), a 10 minute walk from a diverse commercial district, and a block away was an apartment building.

      This mixture exists in some suburbs (Like parts of Naperville outside Chicago, or Bellevue outside Seattle, or many parts of cities that are not at the density of OTR) new development should be a mixture of housing types that appeal to all tastes. Otherwise we must subsidize a low density development type that without a mixture of more dense housing types nearby cannot sustain itself without a sprawling framework of high speed car infrastructure.

      Walkability, mixture of housing types, and car access without car domination. Our lack of new single family houses in areas with these attributes are the real reason that suburban housing is so much cheaper, there is too much supply that does not match the variety of tastes.

      http://cra.gmu.edu/pdfs/studies_reports_presentations/Multifamily%20Housing%20in%20the%20DC%20Region_Final.pdf

      http://chicagoagentmagazine.com/inconvenient-truth-housing-two-charts/

      We have much more suburban single family homes than we have demand for them. We need more single family homes in cities near desirable neighborhoods like Northside, and walkable apartment rentals in suburban town centers for recent graduates, or couples not yet ready to commit to a house. Suburbia is used to refer to suburbs that are not “sub” urban, due to their detached single family housing monoculture, they are not urban at all. They are communities defined by cars more than they are defined by persons due to their lack of density requiring commercial densities (not to mention town services) that are too sparse to be supported by people walking to the store from the community.

      I speak from experience, you can still have peace and quiet on a side street, even if there are apartments nearby. The problem is that we haven’t built enough houses that match the demand for that living experience, that are within close proximity to those amenities I described growing up. Rebuild your suburbs to hold there value, by making them less about cars, and more about people.

      http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/07/17/The-New-Boom-Towns-Suburbs-Get-City-Makeovers

    • matimal

      Like a a bucket of pump “cheese” versus a small wedge of French Camembert. Got it.

    • Kris Vladimirov

      That’s why I said “I prefer…” I like peace and quiet. I like more room. I like more greenery. A suburban home will cost you much less than one of comparable size in the city, and they often have more amenities.

    • EDG

      You can find all of those things in neighborhoods within 3 miles of downtown.

    • Kris Vladimirov

      Safe? Good school? Not overrun by hoodlums? Cheap?

      No, you can’t.

    • matimal

      are you a suburban real estate agent?

    • Kris Vladimirov

      No, I’m a 401(k) Advisor.

    • matimal

      I knew you must be some kind of conman. That’s what the suburbs are all about…getting something for nothing.

    • http://www.UrbanCincy.com/ Randy A. Simes

      Hey guys, I think we all enjoy a healthy debate, but let’s please avoid any name calling or personal attacks. I think we all agree that there’s nothing wrong with a difference of opinion and debating the merits associated with coming to that opinion, but this conversation has devolved into over generalizations and sensationalized comparisons.

    • EDG

      If that’s what you value, I would bet I spend more time outside than you- roughly an hour a day outside walking 2 miles to work and back, plus other extra walking trips I can make because of this proximity. And my apt does have a courtyard if I need a backyard/patio feel.

    • Kris Vladimirov

      This isn’t a pissing contest. I don’t care how much you walk. I don’t like going out during the week. I focus on my work and duties.

    • EDG

      Obviously, you weren’t aware that the city vs. suburbs debate is an existing, lively one.

    • Kris Vladimirov

      No, I wasn’t. I’ll beware before I comment on this website again.

      You may resume the circle jerk now, fellas. Cya!

    • http://www.UrbanCincy.com/ Randy A. Simes

      Kris: I appreciate your different perspective. In fact, several people on this comment thread have engaged with you in a reasonable manner. We do not tolerate name calling and poor behavior toward one another in our comment section regardless of the person’s position on a topic, which is why I posted the advisory message above.

      I hope you can continue to contribute to this comment section, and others, going forward. It is most engaging and productive when we all avoid over generalizations and name calling. If we can all live by those simple rules, then we can this in the future. Plus, no one likes a circle jerk.

    • matimal

      Temper, temper, You can’t expect your magical powers of persuasion to work on everyone. Some people just aren’t in the market for what you have to offer.

    • matimal

      Really? You had no idea that there was a large popular discussion in America today about the unsustainable costs of fringe suburban infrastructure? You can’t be serious?

    • matimal

      It most definitely IS a pissing contest for you, Kris. You care deeply how everyone talks about the things you identify with. This isn’t about personal choice for you. It’s about justifying your values and way of life with complete strangers who don’t share those values.

    • Kris Vladimirov

      Nope.

      “I see astonishing improvements. It’s very impressive. However, I still prefer suburban life.”

      ^ Read my first comment again. I was happy about the positive changes. You catty hipster city bitches started attacking with negative comments over ONE freaking sentence about my preference.

      Get over it. :)

  • jim nau

    Where are all the shots of price hill and westwood? There aren’t any they had to move the ghetto sonewhere

    • EDG

      Lol

    • matimal

      Whose the “they” jim nau is writing about?

    • Jay

      They refers to the people who are buying up the property and kicking the poor people out.

    • http://travisestell.com/ Travis

      Despite constant accusations of “gentrification”, I have seen no evidence that anyone is getting kicked out of OTR. Most of the buildings that are being renovated were empty, so we’re replacing vacant buildings with occupied ones. Additionally, OTR’s current population is only around 8,000 but there is enough room for tens of thousands of residents in the neighborhood.

    • Phydeux

      No, most of that displacement happened when they tore down the old projects in Queensgate and all the riffraff’s homes were exported to Price Hill and Forest Park.

      OTR is just the gangster’s business district. Now their business is coming up to Price Hill as well. Evidenced by the increased amount of hooker activity after they closed McMicken. I’ve even been propositioned recently, first time in the 12 years I’ve lived in West Price Hill.

    • matimal

      I’m confused. How can the people who don’t own property or live in Westwood be responsible for the state of affairs in Westwood?

    • Matt Jacob

      It’d be cool to see the Wadvogel Viaduct, Incline House, Montana (at either Harrison or Westwood Northern), and eventually the Lick Run project on Queen City and the new police station on Ferguson when they’re done. Lots has happened on the westside too.

    • http://www.UrbanCincy.com/ Randy A. Simes

      I’m not really sure how a Google Street View scene would capture a rebuilt viaduct. I would also say that the Incline House is truly unremarkable and would not really show much in terms of physical change from the street.

    • Matt Jacob

      It’s going from an old shot with nothing built to a new one with a building on it, which I think the Incline House qualifies as. Not on the large scale like the ones you picked, but you’d still be able to see the changes.

      The viaduct could be cool to see how the approachs changed from say Elberon looking down at it towards the city from before the construction then after

    • Phydeux

      Now if they’d only widen Glenway and get rid of the on-street parking in the commercial districts (read as: Price Hill Chili area) then we’d see some improvement. But traffic through the west side is so painfully slow its ridiculous.

    • matimal

      Whose “they”?

    • cinserious

      Sucks 2 B from the Westside bubby!

    • matimal

      Why?

    • Phydeux

      Have you DRIVEN up Glenway? Gangbangers, hookers, slow traffic, on-street parking where its already slow going, and more dilapidated buildings than you can count. And you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting some sort of deadbeat.

    • matimal

      What’s this got to do with the areas shown in the google map images?

  • JacobEPeters

    This is awesome, good sleuthing.

  • Pam Wesley

    Sadly I wish some of the older buildings had been restored instead of torn down and replaced with buildings that are just too modern looking for some of these historical areas. And yes, I would love to see a lot more of OTR, it has been going throw a lot of amazing restoration over the past few years

  • cinserious

    I love it how in the ‘Avondale’ picture, the drug dealer is serving his customer while on a bike in 2007 and in the present day that same dope pusher has to park his bike and walk up to is customers.

    • matimal

      You “love” the photo? Really? Are you being sarcastic?

  • Joe Jackson

    Adding the before and after of Queen City Square, the casino project, and Washington Park would be cool.

  • stooge

    This is a very nice photo series of “Sim City Architecture” or “something that is by no means unique” to Cincinnati. (term I read and liked in Urbanophile’s ‘Checking in on Columbus’ post)

    • stooge

      Mostly the Uptown picture, Columbia Tusculum, The Banks, OTR 14th street. then in terms of new construction, the northside development on Blue rock and Hamilton that is starting this year, USquare, The Rest of Uptown’s developments in Corryville. A lot of the same boring song killing the visual character of these neighborhoods. These buildings are the Celine Dion’s of development.

  • Jerod Weber

    Short Vine! Especially the block between Daniels and University.

  • Rae-Leigh Stark

    This collection of before and after photos are an awesome way to see the transformation (and there are only a couple where I prefer the before!). One disappointment I saw in every photo is the missing bike infrastructure and roads that are too wide. It’s great seeing dense, urban development, but the transportation improvements to complement the new land use is lacking.

  • matimal

    92 Comments! Many Cincinnatians are clearly very troubled by the idea that the municipality of Cincinnati is experiencing investment and economic growth.

    • Phydeux

      Nope, growth is fine. But buildings that lack soul or warmth aren’t necessarily an “improvement”.

    • matimal

      The opponents of Cincinnati aren’t opposed for aesthetic reasons, but for financial and political ones.

  • Jay

    Awesome! As long as you didn’t live there before gentrification took place.

    • http://travisestell.com/ Travis

      I’m sure all of the long-time residents appreciate the reduction in crime and addition of new businesses that come along with new residents being added.

    • Phydeux

      Unless it was their home that was razed to do so. Norwood anyone?

    • Phydeux

      I thought that about the homes in Walnut Hills that were removed to make room for a sterile glass building.