|
|
| Re: 76st what happened? (1033830) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: 76st what happened? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Feb 4 02:46:58 2011, in response to Re: 76st what happened?, posted by SMAZ on Fri Feb 4 02:19:59 2011. The 1951 photo is CONCLUSIVE.It proves nothing either way. The station allegedly operated between 1948-1952. There's nothing there. OBERATED? Huh? Where was it ever written that this alleged station ever "operated", much less whatever years? That building with the big yard setback on the corner that people like to photograph? Nothing there. ??? Yes, nothing there. So? The building probably was built in the later. The big yard is because of setback laws by that point, not because "there was an entrance planned. What does that have to do with the photo? That building BTW appears in the 1954 photo on HistoricAeriels.com. Property tax records indicate that the rest of the houses on that corner were built in 1960. Nothing there. Again, what does that have to do with anything? It seems that all the "Stationers" go out of their way with the most outlandish scenarios for why things are not the way they are supposed to be and continue to ignore the most obvious. I already explained why the buildings have "larger yards", because of the setback laws changing. YOu can't put buildings as close to the property line as you could in the early 1900's. Nothing to do with the photo either way. Nothing was built. The trackways behind the cinderblock wall probably terminate just a bit beyond where Pitkin dips after the parking lot on Elderts Lane. Maybe, maybe not, but none of that could be proved from the photo. There is then a pronounced dip in the street. Imagine how much it dipped before Pitkin was raised? Imagine the challenges of digging in that bayou? Again, nothing that can be proved from the photo. No wonder they opted to capture the Liberty El. Cut-and cover work most likely continued to just before the school with piles of dirt left there once abandoned. The street was then raised above the roof of that portion. "Most likely" implies speculation. Again, this can't be proven, nor disproven from the image. When NYCT was most likely having flooding and safety problems due to it, they decided to seal it off. Probably. But again, speculation, and nothing to do with the image. |
|
|
|