Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest PeterGriffin

Google Earth images of the 3 C's

Recommended Posts

Hey everybody, I thought this was a cool idea.  I don't know if anyone has done it before but I thought it was neat to compare the 3 downtowns of the 3 C's.  I don't know if this is the right section or if it should just go in City Discussion but hopefully this will work.  Check it out.

 

Cleveland:

n66201742_30221289_6659.jpg

 

Cincinnati:

n66201742_30221288_5656.jpg

 

Columbus:

n66201742_30221290_7526.jpg

 

It's cool how different the landscapes are so I just figured I'd put a side by side comparison of images that everyone has probably already seen before.  Enjoy!

 

:wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea. I found some differences of the downtowns...

 

1) You can definetaly tell Cleveland & Columbus have bigger buildings then Cincy...

 

2) Columbus & Cincy have straight downtown streets and intersections where as you can see Cleveland has more angled streets. You can see alot of square shapes from the street intersections in CIN and CLB...

 

3) I kind off looks like CLE has a bigger downtown then CLB...

 

4) CLE has less highway then CIN and CLB around the city...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was very suprised to see that it almost looks like Cleveland is more dense than Cincy which I wasn't expecting.  It could be an illusion though.  Also, I find it very cool that Cincy and Columbus have American grid style layouts and Cleveland has a more European, almost Parisian style street layout. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with above post. Cleveland looks most dense of the three, which surprises me as well based on the overall posts of this forum.

 

My opinion is that the comments about density in reference to the three C’s are based on the angles/locations that the city of Cleveland is most photographed.

 

For the most part, photographs I’ve seen on this site are taken from the west (the least dense area of downtown) or the flats. The west end of downtown is also where the tallest buildings are located and they tend obstruct the views of the smaller buildings to the east.

 

Any views of downtown from the flats are very common and misleading in respect to density as well. The buildings to the east appear small, and few and far in between. This is because of the lower elevation of the flats compared with the higher elevation of the downtown area. Actually the buildings are no more than seven or eight relatively short blocks away, all though they appear much farther away.

 

The entire downtown skyline can only be seen in the photographs that are taken from the near/far east or the due south/southwest. Examples of this are the observation deck of the Garfield Memorial (Lakeside Cemetery) to the east, or the Broadview Heights/ Parma areas to the south/southwest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Agreed...the Big three (maybe 4) make the other buildings to the East look smaller than they actually are.  The residential density in the Cincy picture to the North is definitely worth noting.  It is just different types of building...in Cleveland you have more large condo or apt buildings, while from the pics I have seen in Cincy, there seem to be more smaller buildings packed closely together.  This gives the impression of a very dense area.  Unfortunately Cleveland lost many of those same type buildings throughout not just the downtown area, but even throughout the city, long ago.  Since we are only really talking about downtown, I would have to say Cleveland is a very "angular" city....from certain aspects, it looks kind of spread out...like views from the West (except maybe going into the city from the Main Ave bridge), but when you stand at E 9th and Euclid or E 9th and Prospect...looking in any direction the buildings go quite far.

* My personal favorite is the view from UH to downtown following Euclid Ave at dusk.   ( can be seen on this site in the Cleveland skyline page  5th column, 8th row down)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Cleveland when coming in east bound on the I-90 bridge. You can see all the buildings from the Justice Center to Rhodes Hall at CSU and it looks very nice. I also like coming in on I-90 West bound and it looks real dense. Columbus I like the view coming in on I-70 east bound seeing the talls line up along High and other downtown Aves. I like CIncy entering on I-71,75 North seeing the skyline through the hills-nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I actually love all three cities skylines from those locations. But I don't live in Ohio and I don't get to see them very often :x Also, I love the Pittsburgh skyline from the Fort Pitt Tunnel, one of the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, capping the highway through downtown is in Cincinnati's plans...but we've got a river that's probably at 26' in that picture, a flood stage of 52', and a river that hits the mid-50's probably every 2nd or 3rd year, hits the mid-60's every 30-50 years, and could probably hit 80 again if everything went wrong at once.  A little decapitation is just wise design!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea. I found some differences of the downtowns...

 

1) You can definitely tell Cleveland & Columbus have bigger buildings then Cincy...

 

 

Well, depending on the time of day that the sat flew over the city would determine the shadow length. I would bet that Cincy was taken around Noon, while Cleveland was early morning and Columbus, well I could careless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. But shadows or not the 3 tallest buildings in Ohio (and between NY & Chi-town) are located in downtown Cleveland.

 

Key Tower 947 ft  - 57 Stories

Terminal Tower 708 ft - 52 stories

BP Tower 658 ft - 45 stories

 

The tallest buildings in Col, Cin are below clev's 3rd tallest. I'm not dissing either city, I'm simply stating the facts.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that Cincinnati and Cleveland are both equally dense in the core (though Cleveland's shadows makes it seem more complete, though it's an optical illusion), yet Cincinnati's northern residential area is much denser than the other two (as the area east of downtown Cleveland and almost all of the perimeter of downtown Columbus is horrendous).  Though the highways that surround all of those cities is pathetic.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea. I found some differences of the downtowns...

 

2) Columbus & Cincy have straight downtown streets and intersections where as you can see Cleveland has more angled streets. You can see alot of square shapes from the street intersections in CIN and CLB...

 

I really love how Cleveland's streets wind like this. It gives the illusion of a denser and easier-to-get-lost-in downtown when you're walking through them.

 

And even shadows aside, you can definitely tell Cleveland's downtown looks more packed together and tight (if you ignore the Public Square parking lots).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, aerial photos, my best friends!

 

I've looked at these particular images so many times that I ought to have something interesting to point out about them, but it isn't so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And even shadows aside, you can definitely tell Cleveland's downtown looks more packed together and tight (if you ignore the Public Square parking lots).

 

Well hell, ignore Broadway Commons and Cincinnati wins the "dense" card if we are ignoring blatant parking lots lol!


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And even shadows aside, you can definitely tell Cleveland's downtown looks more packed together and tight (if you ignore the Public Square parking lots).

 

Well hell, ignore Broadway Commons and Cincinnati wins the "dense" card if we are ignoring blatant parking lots lol!

 

Actually I think Cincy's spread-out sections are more glaring than either Columbus or Cleveland's. Especially to the north before that dense housing starts, yuck. Maybe it's just the way the aerial shot makes it look. They could really do a lot with that and make it look pretty nice!

 

Columbus looks a lot better than I thought it would. I never realised how it's built right up to the river.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I think Cincy's spread-out sections are more glaring than either Columbus or Cleveland's. Especially to the north before that dense housing starts, yuck. Maybe it's just the way the aerial shot makes it look. They could really do a lot with that and make it look pretty nice!

 

Er...which area are you talking about?  Here's a shot ColDay took (Cincinnati Aerials Part I & Cincinnati Aerials Part II) from the north looking back at town:

 

CincinnatiAerials28.jpg

 

The "spread out area" is to the left in this shot:

 

CincinnatiAerials41.jpg

 

...and to the right:

 

CincinnatiAerials70.jpg

 

...Cincinnati's not got a lot of things, but density in the basin, that it does fairly well...could have even fewer surface lots, no doubt, but that's true everywhere...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cleveland:

n66201742_30221289_6659.jpg

 

Ughh-even from space, you can't get away from those hideous orange seats at CBS. I'll bet NASA uses them as a navigation point.

And to all of those who slam the Cuyahoga River for always looking brown-ALL rivers "appear brown". It has nothing to do with how clean or dirty it may be. Get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this little debate is civilized enough; adding some fuel can't hurt too much.  So I might as well dig up these maps I threw together for another thread a while back.  The discussion spurred from a similar map of Columbus on some web site.  For the record, official CBD boundaries were a factor, so that's why the Cleveland map below seems to address a larger area, though I can't recall if the maps are at the same scale.

 

Cleveland downtown area surface lots:

cleveland%20parking%20lots.jpg

 

Cincinnati downtown area surface lots:

cincinnati%20parking%20lots.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree that being dense is one thing Cincinnati does well ;-) In all honesty, Cincy's CBD is more tightly packed if for no other reason than its topography.

 

MayDay, I was hoping you would come through with a well-balanced honest opinion. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And to all of those who slam the Cuyahoga River for always looking brown-ALL rivers "appear brown". It has nothing to do with how clean or dirty it may be. Get over it."

 

If I had a dollar for every time I had to explain that the riverbed is mud (rather than sand/sediment) and THAT'S why it always looks brown...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are great!  They really demonstrate that there is room to grow in both CBDs.  Also, Cleveland appears to have more "full block" surface lots in the CBD than Cincinnati.  Thankfully, there are plans on the near horizon for several of these (Avenue District & Stark's "Pesht").  How about Cincy?  I'm not up-to-date there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about the spot just west of Cinergy---errrr...GAB?  Are those being primed for something?

 

We've got big ol' chunks of land just west and north of Browns Stadium that aren't marked as surface lots, but they behave as such on a few select Sundays every year.  Otherwise, they're Port of Cleveland facilities.  We're working on a master plan to move them to the west side of the river...that's our "next millenium" plan!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agree the shadows in the cle shot are misleading, but in a good way.

 

this is getting away from the cbd and generalizing but there is no question that cleveland was at one time by far the most dense. but clev took the worst clear-cutting hits of them all and we have been crying over that stale draft erin brew beer for the last 40 yrs. and we should too! shame on our city leaders of all three c's for all the teardowns.

 

now what we do with the tabla rasa empty lots? that's on all of us, thats for today and the future. we all must do what we can to make sure developers and city leaders use the opportunities wisely and stay on their backs like pitbulls.  :whip:

 

ok, i'd say despite all it's losses too, cinci remains more intact than cle or cols so it wins in reality. aerial photo or no photo i don't care. yes the hills help so what. not to mention it's prettiest of all three. not that its a contest, but there i said it.

 

the big buildings, big apt buildings & big wood double houses, etc. of clev vs the tight downtown, intact side-by-side brick and row stuff in cinci? well, like the ohio river and lake erie, that's just apples and oranges to me. i like'm both.  :clap:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't wanna make this into a pissing contest or anything but it seems to me that becuz Cleveland lost so much of its historical architecture,core buildings,neighborhoods etc(and becuz Cincinnati has the nearly intact over-the-rhine and a few areas downtown) that it has become fashionable to say without question that Cleveland lost the most.Many people don't realize that nearly the entire basin area of Cincinnati was built up and occupied. And not only that but the entire riverfront as well.In the 1880's Cincinnati was the densist city in America with over 300,000 people all of them crammed/packed into this comparatively tiny area for a whopping 37,143 people per square mile. Then the migration up the hills began and also the diffusion of the populace into those areas,and then the cities land area increased as well. So as far as historical density goes, top that.Btw, nearly all of these residences are gone and only portions of it remain. Thank GOD we still have that tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ it's not fashionable, cincity it's reality. cinci topped out around 500k at its pop peak w/in its city limits and clev about 1m within a slightly smaller square milage. but i can't show you any inkling of that from today's aerials. why do you think clevelanders bemoan so much on here and in general? we grew up being told how big it used to be in our own parents lifetimes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about historical density,before both cities were 70 square miles or so. Cincy's residents were literally packed into the basin area,with the hills surrounding it acting as a veritable fortress on all sides.The city was about 10 square miles with a population at 370,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a reference regarding Cleveland, our city's current density is a little less than 2,400/km2. If we had retained our peak population, our density would compare with cities like Montreal (4,327), Boston (4,640) and Chicago (4,923). That being said, we're still comparable to Seattle (2,626) and St. Louis (2,225) and blow Houston (1,302) and Atlanta (1,221) out of the water. FYI, Cincinnati stands at 1,498/km2. Granted, population density does not at all equate to building density in CBDs, but I thought the digression was worthwhile.  :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was simply trying to point out that becuz Cincy still retains some of its historically dense character this leads to the perception that most of the city remains intact. This couldn't be farther from the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8shades where did you find that? heres what i found on wiki and posted it in a recent similar thread on ssp:

 

 

"i have no idea how perfectly on the money this is since i got it off wiki, but since ohio is the most representative state and cleveland has the most density here it is: 6,166.5/mi². that's not for a 25mi radius, but for the whole city area of 77.6 mi². that's all i could find."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The figure of 37,000 per square mile and the claim of densest city in america comes from Ohio history central web site.(sorry, i'm new to computers and don't know how to post a link.yes i'm a complete idiot I know)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow that would be more than parts of chicago or los angeles today! cleveland's peopel per sq mi density would have topped out at like 12.5k at it's pop peak, maybe a bit more as i am not sure of the city limits in those days.

 

for comparison's sake today some peak pop density area codes of chicago and los angeles are in the lower 20k people per sq mi range. manhattan is in the 66k per sq mi range and brooklyn in the 40+k range.

 

i got that info from the "densest city" thread over on ssp.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...