I am always amused at the fact that we for some reason have close to the highest splashpads per capita among the rated cities. It's not a bad thing, just not what I would have expected. Whenever there is a new park design released I always end up looking for a splashpad and having a chuckle. Should probably add one or two more downtown with some playgrounds for good measure.

Could downtown Cleveland’s parks and public spaces be more fun and better programmed? A new survey seeks answers

 

Quote

Downtown Cleveland’s public spaces are greener, more numerous, better designed, and more enticing than they were a generation ago when gray was the primary color and concrete the main material.

 

But the city has a long way to go before it rivals peer cities that offer coordinated, well-programmed, and promoted outdoor events that are scheduled year-round through permitting processes that make it easier for fun to happen.

 

That’s why the Cleveland Foundation has joined with Destination Cleveland, the city’s convention and visitors bureau, and the Greater Cleveland Partnership, the region’s chamber of commerce, to figure out how to capitalize on downtown Cleveland’s eight most important parks and plazas.

 

Link to survey:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/H859CRZ

 

Link to article:

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/05/could-downtown-clevelands-parks-be-more-fun-and-better-programmed-a-new-survey-seeks-answers.html

A string...

 

 

A better question is whether they could be worse. 

8 hours ago, OldEnough said:

A better question is whether they could be worse. 

City of Cleveland Parks & Rec employees:  "Hold our beers!" 

Im going to keep screaming: “SUB OUT PARKS, REC, AND FORESTRY TO THE METROPARKS”!

The best public parks provide escape and calm and a chance to recover with friends and family or by yourself. You can go for a stroll, take a deep breath of clean air, sunbathe, play wiffle ball, sit on a bench, read for hours, anything that is simple and fulfilling.

But obviously a few things have to be in place for this idyllic habitat to exist.

So what makes a good public park? Here's a short list: 

 

Parks need to be centrally located. They need to be accessible to poor people and rich people. You shouldn’t have to travel hours to get to a park. You should just be able to walk 10-30 minutes or take a short train ride to get there.

There needs to be lots of nature. A good public park has lots of trees and ponds to look at, lots of grass to walk on and fresh, fragrant air.

 

Birds. If birds like to go to your park, you know it’s good.

 

Safety. You should never feel unsafe in a park. Most importantly, women and children should always feel safe. A park should be a sanctuary, which means that you should be able to go there and hang out without being threatened in any way. So park security should be present, but not overbearing.

 

Walking paths. A good park has lots of walking paths that you can meander along.

Public art. Parks should feature regular public installations and permanent statues, ideally from local artists.  

 

Cultural events. Urban parks are celebrations of civic life and they should feature vibrant event schedules that include local musicians, plays, readings, biking groups, yoga and more.

 

Cleanliness. Parks are only as good as their upkeep. This isn’t just cleaners going in and replacing trash bags. It’s primarily about park goers being diligent, picking up their garbage and putting it in the proper waste receptacle, not tossing it recklessly on the ground.

.

Edited May 25, 20223 yr by gruver

21 hours ago, marty15 said:

Im going to keep screaming: “SUB OUT PARKS, REC, AND FORESTRY TO THE METROPARKS”!

100% agree!
With a commission that maintains an entire national park within our CSA, the Metroparks should not only have complete control over P&R, but streetscapes to restore us to forest city once again. The current situation on the streets with sidewalk shrubs and trees are laughable. The convention center mall is waaaay too big and flat with nothing even remotely interesting all the way to the shoreway. Why on earth was that allowed to happen with no shade, minimal water features, and just plain old boring grass... The mall was super lazily designed and honestly would be better off being real estate than being a park if its just going to be grass. All bets aside, we are not the forest city we once used to be. The concrete planters look generic, and although they complement PHS with their playful nature, everywhere else just seems out of place, we cannot call ourselves the forest city with low lying flowers. Maybe replace some planters or alternate those planters with tall, small root based cherry blossoms seeing as DT doesnt get too much low level high winds. There's solutions to making our city stand out, and the best solution is to allow a park service take care of our streetscape and parks if the city doesnt give a damn about its own appearance... If Mayor Bibb says we have all this money to fix our appearance we definitely have money to allow a different agency be apart of our council.

I'm feeling cynical today but I don't like the idea of subbing EVERYTHING out to the metroparks - yes, they do a bangup job and would be an amazing resource - but at the same time metroparks are funded from countywide sources whereas Cleveland taxes pay for Cleveland parks. I know that it's more than city residents who use the malls (and other Cle parks), but at some point we need to demand (at least) adequate service from the city services we pay for. The city can't depend on being bailed out by the metroparks everytime a department or agency fails. 

 

idk maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill but I'd like our city and its employees to get its sh*t together for once instead of taking the easy way out. 

12 minutes ago, GISguy said:

I'm feeling cynical today but I don't like the idea of subbing EVERYTHING out to the metroparks - yes, they do a bangup job and would be an amazing resource - but at the same time metroparks are funded from countywide sources whereas Cleveland taxes pay for Cleveland parks. I know that it's more than city residents who use the malls (and other Cle parks), but at some point we need to demand (at least) adequate service from the city services we pay for. The city can't depend on being bailed out by the metroparks everytime a department or agency fails. 

 

idk maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill but I'd like our city and its employees to get its sh*t together for once instead of taking the easy way out. 

 

Building off this; the goals of the metroparks is also different than a city parks department. The metroparks do have good programing at some of their parks and do maintain playgrounds, but a city parks and rec department has to maintain playgrounds, baseball fields and basketball courts, pools, and rec centers. I don't doubt the Metroparks could maintain these, but I don't think the synergies are quite as beneficial as they appear at first glance. 

 

Also, having a city department run the parks should, in theory, make it easier to coordinate permits for events with the city rather than having to coordinate with the city and the Metroparks. 

We live in the poorest city in the country. The budget for the entire recreation department is $18mil. $10 million of that is paid in wages. The metro parks budget is ten times that. 

47 minutes ago, bumsquare said:

We live in the poorest city in the country. The budget for the entire recreation department is $18mil. $10 million of that is paid in wages. The metro parks budget is ten times that. 

 

It's also a county levy and a high one at that, I don't think someone in Brecksville wants to start paying to maintain all of Clevelands parks nor is it fair to expect that.

 

Maybe some accountability needs to come to that $10M in wages. An example: my coworker swims at one of the rec centers- pool was exceptionally dirty and lining wasn't cleaned. He mentioned the need for a vacuum and got brushed off repeatedly, I think it's safe to say this mindset is pretty normalized across the board. 

On 7/8/2022 at 1:52 PM, Dino said:

Agree to disagree.

 

TPL has a park score of 23; I found a stat that Cleveland is 33rd in acres/resident, but all of these are misleading because they are looking at the entire City or region.  I was talking about the context of our downtown.   I happen to think that downtown is well served by nearby parks.  

 

Interestingly, TPL has an interactive map that shows where it suggest parks are needed.  The downtown lakefront has tiny sections labelled as a moderate priority.

https://parkserve.tpl.org/mapping/index.html?CityID=3916000

Responding here as it is the more appropriate thread to do so. Agreeing to disagree is fine, I'm replying to you so as to not have to reiterate the prior conversation. Don't feel any pressure to reply.

 

The reason I cite total acreage instead of TPL's computed ranking is both because it is more objective, and more relevant to the discussion. Whether or not Cleveland needs more park space has nothing to do with investment or park equity, those are important concerns, just different concerns.

 

The above screenshot is illustrative of my point, only 6% of Cleveland's land is used for parks, as opposed to 19%(!) for the median city in the 100 largest metro areas.

 

Now, to your specific point about downtown, I disagree with you radically here. To move out of the realm of the subjective I did a quick measurement of the land area devoted to parks in downtown. I found it to be less than 3%, less than the citywide average, which is already far below the median for the largest metro areas. Even if I missed something or made a few mistakes, I don't see Downtown as saturated with parks. 

 

More subjectively, downtown has few parks worth walking to. The malls are nothing special, and thanks to the convention center, no longer performs one of the main functions of malls, which is to preserve sight lines. Public Square is great (poor maintenance aside, two more dead trees cut btw) but it is still bisected by a street, and it's really it's own thing more so than a park. Voinovich park is perhaps an exception (for the views alone!), and it certainly would be if you didn't have to cross a highway and railroad tracks to to get there (cough, land bridge). A fully realized Canal Basin Park would probably also qualify, but does not currently exist. Rivergate is technically downtown, but is pretty far from the downtown core, and more effectively serves the near west side. That said, Rivergate is still full of surface parking, and currently has fences where a riverfront trail should be. 

 

What I've been saying on this forum since I started posting is that Cleveland needs a destination park. Something like Chicago's Grant Park. A place worth walking to. A bit of nature accessible from downtown. The only real candidate for this is in Burke's footprint, but ignoring that, we certainly need more parks. As a downtown resident I feel this need almost daily. 

 

As far as Cleveland's overall ranking from the TPL, it's worth digging into a bit farther. A decent number of people in Cleveland are considered within a ten minute walk from a park; however, a quick look at their map shows that being within a ten minute walk of any point on the Towpath, or indeed any other trail qualifies as being within ten minutes of a park. I love trails and I love the towpath, but considering every point on the towpath a park isn't reasonable.

 

Cleveland also gets a pretty good score on investment. I'm not sure if this includes the Metroparks, I assume it does. Either way, there are clearly two tiers of parks in Cleveland, and it shows.

 

Sorry for the long post. I feel very strongly that Cleveland needs more parks, and in its downtown in particular! 

I'm not disputing Cleveland's low ranking although how those stats are complied and the definition of a park seems somewhat subjective. My issue is not so much with the ranking but with the quality and type of area that is considered a "park." To me, we have both too much park land downtown while at the same time not the right kind of parks. Any one who has ever visited Central Park in NY, Grant Park in Chicago or experienced the squares of Savannah Ga. or a park like Rittenhouse Square in Philly know that's what a city park should look like. We don't have anything like that. 

 

The best parks have mature trees and artfully created landscaping. They both invite sitting/watching and activities. Again, our parks have none of that. They don't encourage much of anything other than to keep moving on. Our parks need a massive upgrade in design and maintenance. They need funding to do that. None of this is rocket science though. There are plenty of examples of parks that work and parks that don't. All we need to do is have a few local park organizations create places that work here. We need to raise the bar. Parks that work ultimately pay for themselves by attracting more people to live nearby thus increasing the local tax base. They add life which produces safety. Parks should not be an afterthought.

 

Done correctly, they are value added. 

22 minutes ago, cadmen said:

I'm not disputing Cleveland's low ranking although how those stats are complied and the definition of a park seems somewhat subjective. My issue is not so much with the ranking but with the quality and type of area that is considered a "park." To me, we have both too much park land downtown while at the same time not the right kind of parks. Any one who has ever visited Central Park in NY, Grant Park in Chicago or experienced the squares of Savannah Ga. or a park like Rittenhouse Square in Philly know that's what a city park should look like. We don't have anything like that. 

 

The best parks have mature trees and artfully created landscaping. They both invite sitting/watching and activities. Again, our parks have none of that. They don't encourage much of anything other than to keep moving on. Our parks need a massive upgrade in design and maintenance. They need funding to do that. None of this is rocket science though. There are plenty of examples of parks that work and parks that don't. All we need to do is have a few local park organizations create places that work here. We need to raise the bar. Parks that work ultimately pay for themselves by attracting more people to live nearby thus increasing the local tax base. They add life which produces safety. Parks should not be an afterthought.

 

Done correctly, they are value added. 

 

Very well put. The largest greenspace downtown is just an empty grass field for crying out loud. Not much enjoyment out of that when you compare it to parks with lots of foliage, walking paths, and pavilions. 

27 minutes ago, cadmen said:

All we need to do is have a few local park organizations create places that work here. We need to raise the bar. Parks that work ultimately pay for themselves by attracting more people to live nearby thus increasing the local tax base.

 

To respond to a very narrow part of your post; I think there is reason for optimism. We all recognize the good work the Cleveland Metroparks does, but they are not actively acquiring land for parks. Instead we have Western Reserve Land Conservancy and West Creek Conservancy--it is my understanding that both of these organizations are in the business of acquiring land that often is turned over to the Metroparks.

 

West Creek, for example, is relatively young (been around only ~20 years) but one of their goals is to make the emerald necklace contiguous. They are also one of the parties involved in the acquisition and development of Irish Town Bend park, which will hopefully be closer to some of the examples you sited. 

 

I know we are disappointed in the parklet that is going into Tower City, but the Conservancy for CVNP was involved in that as well which could signal that they might extend their reach further north into Cleveland, bringing a third conservancy into play. 

 

Also, if I am remembering correctly, Bibb floated the idea of a reorganization to make the Cleveland Parks and Rec Department independent which would ideally/hopefully allow them to improve the city parks. 

 

Outside of that I think there are some ways we could get creative to bring in federal and state money to the region to free up resources of the various groups mentioned above allowing them to reinvest elsewhere. There are 2 marine sanctuaries in the Great Lakes (Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast in Lake Michigan and Thunder Bay in Lake Huron), and a third to be designated in Lake Ontario; if Cleveland were to pursue one in Lake Erie it would bring federal money to manage the area designated, for research, and for public access and tourism. Part of managing the area could include aiding in rehabilitating the watershed, which could include aiding in dam removals. 

 

I have also been looking at water trails in the area, we have one along the Lake Erie coast and the Cuyahoga River; the Rocky River and Chagrin River are not designated. If these two rivers were designated water trails it would bring state money to help maintain and improve access on these rivers. I had reached out to the Metroparks about this and they said it was not among their current priorities given the significant obstacles in the Rocky River (dams and fords) and that these rivers tend to get shallow and unnavigable, especially later in the summer. Though USGS has meter stations on both of these rivers so it would be easy enough to provide the safe discharge and water levels and paddlers to check before going out. 

23 minutes ago, dwolfi01 said:

Very well put. The largest greenspace downtown is just an empty grass field for crying out loud. Not much enjoyment out of that when you compare it to parks with lots of foliage, walking paths, and pavilions. 

I'm not sure how much can be done there since it is the roof of the convention center, but it seems like it would be good space for concerts and other performances during the summer.  

6 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

We all recognize the good work the Cleveland Metroparks does, but they are not actively acquiring land for parks.

The Metroparks definitely do buy land for parks, they recently acquired some land in the flats. Though you are absolutely right that there are other organizations which also acquire land for conservation, and will sometimes transfer it to the Metroparks. 

13 minutes ago, Ethan said:

The Metroparks definitely do buy land for parks, they recently acquired some land in the flats. Though you are absolutely right that there are other organizations which also acquire land for conservation, and will sometimes transfer it to the Metroparks. 

 

You're right, they do. They just don't acquire as much land as their annual acquired acres might suggest, a lot of that is purchased by these conservancies then transferred over to the Metroparks.

 

West Creek Reservation in Parma was land acquired by West Creek Conservancy, Acacia Reservation was purchased by The Conservation Fund, Euclid Beach Mobile Home Park by Western Reserve Land Conservancy as some examples. 

I'm a huge fan of the Metro Parks and contribute to the Nature Conservancy but for this discussion l focused on parks downtown. It's those parks that need a revamp. That's a multi-stage process. It starts with an understanding that we HAVE to do better. That's step one and we're not even there yet. Unfortunately. Step two is understanding what makes a successful urban park. I see no indication that our leadership knows what works and why. Step three is implementation. 

 

We have a very long way to go folks.

I must be losing my mind, i couldn’t find the warehouse district thread. But this should fit here too.

Any updates/pics on the new Lighthouse Park?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The grand opening celebration will be held the week of August 15th - very exciting! The giant overhead light bar and the swings will be added soon. 

 

2 hours ago, urbanetics_ said:

The grand opening celebration will be held the week of August 15th - very exciting! The giant overhead light bar and the swings will be added soon. 

 

Definite improvement! More of these little parks downtown plz!

Lighthouse Park update: just awaiting the swings and a few other finishing details! What a transformation of this stretch. 

Cleveland issues RFP for first-ever Citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan

 

https://mayor.clevelandohio.gov/news/cleveland-issues-rfp-first-ever-citywide-parks-and-recreation-master-plan

16 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

Cleveland issues RFP for first-ever Citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan

 

https://mayor.clevelandohio.gov/news/cleveland-issues-rfp-first-ever-citywide-parks-and-recreation-master-plan

15 year masterplan? Ugh.

 

Save the time and effort and start negotiating with the Metroparks for a seamless takeover.

Edited August 22, 20222 yr by marty15

40 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

Overall a win.   New downtown residents with nice, quiet neighbors! 

I appreciate the joke, but it does make me think. While this is a cemetery, and not a park, it would still be nice to see this area beautified a bit. Especially with more population moving nearby. Obviously a cemetery isn't a place for active play, but how realistic is improving the maintenance and maybe adding a few more trees and some benches? It looks to be owned by the city. 

^ Good point.  Lakeview Cemetery receives a lot of visitors due to the James A. Garfield Memorial as well as other noteworthy individuals who are buried there.  Perhaps Erie St Cemetery can arrange for some kind of group or self-guided tours if they don't already exist.

36 minutes ago, LibertyBlvd said:

^ Good point.  Lakeview Cemetery receives a lot of visitors due to the James A. Garfield Memorial as well as other noteworthy individuals who are buried there.  Perhaps Erie St Cemetery can arrange for some kind of group or self-guided tours if they don't already exist.

Great idea -- a local historian could create a self-guided walking tour in connection with:  https://www.takeahikecle.com

Funny you all should mention that - DCA is actually adding an Erie Street Cemetery Take a Hike Tour this summer - it’ll be every Friday at noon to provide a fun lunchtime experience. Stay tuned!

1 hour ago, cadmen said:

The best thing to do with the plaza is to remove the cement and turn it into a mini-park with dense foliage and find someone to open a little outdoor cafe to take advantage of the scene. I realize none of that is going to happen now but once City Club AND the Centennial is fully leased then the corner might actually become a center of activity. It also could create a little synergy with Heinan's.

Moving this discussion here.

 

I might be the most pro-park person on this forum, but it isn't obvious to me that every plaza is better off as a park. More trees, sure, but I think keeping the hardscaping is better in this instance (though changing to semi porous version would be better from a runoff perspective). It's a very small area, any kind of grass or lawn would be difficult to maintain and would likely get trampled to death. (Especially after this plaza becomes a stop for a future Euclid Ave Subway 😜).

 

This "park" would be tiny (0.3 acre), much smaller than Perk Plaza (1 acre), which does have grass. It's too small for most park uses. 

 

 

I like your other ideas though! Activating this plaza with a (very) small cafe and some simple seating is a great idea! Adding a couple more trees is also a good idea, but I think we should retain the hardscaping and continue to treat it as a plaza instead of a park. 

 

Other thoughts and ideas? 

 

That plaza seems tailor made for a cafe. Good southern exposure, separation from the street, opportunity for lush plantings. Plenty of ground floor space too, which I can't imagine would be too hard to reconfigure. It was actually plaza on the shady north side that was purpose built as a cafe/restaurant (I think) and was occupied by one for much of the building's history. Can't remember now when it went away (late 1990s?). 

 

The Google Streetview pictures for the plaza date back to 2007 and provide a pretty interesting (and predictable) history, which lined up with my vague memories.  Looks like there were some pretty sizable honey locusts within the plaza planters that were taken down between 2011 and 2014. There used to be a pretty good tree canopy there. Not sure why it wasn't replaced.

 

It's also funny to see the visual history of the street trees getting planted, half of them dying, and then all being replaced by honey locusts, which do seem pretty uniquely hardy downtown.

I'm just grateful that plaza has a fountain on it and is actually used! Wish downtown had more fountains.

And @Ethanhave you checked out the new Lighthouse Park yet? Haven't gotten down there yet but curious your thought. Probably pretty nice at night with that lightbar.

6 minutes ago, GREGinPARMA said:

I'm just grateful that plaza has a fountain on it and is actually used! Wish downtown had more fountains.

And @Ethanhave you checked out the new Lighthouse Park yet? Haven't gotten down there yet but curious your thought. Probably pretty nice at night with that lightbar.

Yeah, I checked that out a while ago. My main thought is that while it might be a bit silly to call a park, if that gets the city to do build more (relatively) easy wins like this then I'm all for it! 

 

I'd have liked to see them plant an additional tree or two, but that's really my only complaint.

 

Basically it's a nice improvement, nothing game changing, but these kind of small improvements are exactly what I want to see more of! Ideally what I'd like to see is small activations like this so commonplace throughout the city, that even the city will start to think calling them parks is a bit silly.

 

You could do small things like this at places like PNC plaza as well, swinging benches, clever seating etc. 

I'd like to see some shade sails in our downtown plazas for summertime.  the pavement gets pretty hot in the August sun. could take them down in fall.

 

PNC or public square would be good candidates for something like that

 

https://www.usa-shade.com/projects/parks-recreation/parks

3 hours ago, Ethan said:

I might be the most pro-park person on this forum, but it isn't obvious to me that every plaza is better off as a park. More trees, sure, but I think keeping the hardscaping is better in this instance (though changing to semi porous version would be better from a runoff perspective). It's a very small area, any kind of grass or lawn would be difficult to maintain and would likely get trampled to death.

I wholeheartedly agree. Sure, open grass can be great in parks large enough for activities like frisbee, dog walking, etc. but for smaller plazas/“pocket parks” hardscaping allows pedestrians more freedom of movement and increases the amount of usable space for things like vendors and street performers. On a rainy day, cutting across wet, muddy grass is an absolute nightmare, both for pedestrians’ shoes and for the landscaping that gets trampled (walking across Public Square southeast from Ontario provides an example of why this is sometimes necessary; people don’t like to take unnecessarily longer routes in heavy rain).

 

The renovation of City Hall Plaza in Boston is an excellent example of how hardscaped plazas can become greener and increase shade without sacrificing pedestrian accessibility:

Actually the kind of foliage I envision for the park on E.9th is more along the lines of a raised bed taking up most of the limited square footage. It would include dense plantings of various heights and of course some tall trees. It would be for viewing only, If people couldn't walk through it and enough vegetation was squeezed together it would be healthier than dispersed plantings. Plants do better in groups rather than isolation. 

 

Then you string some cafe tables and a little bar between the plantings and the bank building and you got a potential little destination. If done right I'm sure there would be enough business to make it work. There are tons of places like this all over the world and every one I stumbled upon was doing a good business. A lot of the time it's the little things that make a city work.

These look even better with flowers!

 

About half of these planters have flowers now, I'm guessing the other half will be in by this week. 

 

 

 

 

Those planters outside of Sherwin-Williams look awesome. Super high quality.

Looks better than expected. Now for the really hard part. Maintenance.

4 minutes ago, cadmen said:

Looks better than expected. Now for the really hard part. Maintenance.

 

FWIW DCA does a pretty good job w/maintenance (if these are under their purview).

1 minute ago, GISguy said:

 

FWIW DCA does a pretty good job w/maintenance (if these are under their purview).

Genuinely curious, what areas is DCA in charge of maintaining? 

@GISguyThere is no question that the downtown landscape has been improved greatly by their presence BUT that being said, too often I've seen areas where things look great and others not so great. I don't know if all of that is DCA's purview or not. And if l'm being totally fair my concern is more with unhealthy trees rather than unhealthy flowers. 

Cleveland selects firm to manage city parks and recreation master plan process

Kim Palmer | May 2nd 2023 4:14 PM

 

"The city of Cleveland has selected OLIN, a landscape architecture firm, as the lead consultant to manage the development of a parks and recreation master plan.

 

The Mayor’s Office of Capital Projects, known as MOCAP, chose the firm to analyze all the city’s Neighborhood Resource and Recreation Centers (NRRCs), parks, pools, playgrounds and other facilities. OLIN previously was responsible for the Eastman Reading Garden at the Cleveland Public Library and the plaza and greenspace surrounding the Anthony J. Celebrezze Federal Building.

 

The 15-year master plan will create a road map focused on ensuring the city institutes fair capital investment and equitable connections to quality parks and rec activities, while also meeting the needs of city residents."

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/government/cleveland-selects-olin-parks-and-rec-master-plan

^ I think this is another example of Mayor Bibb "getting it." This decision and his understanding that the West Side Market is a real asset that will pay the city back in folds if it is maintained properly is just smart. He is the kind on Mayor we have been waiting for. Finally!

Does anyone know when all the new trees were added to Willard Park? These will make a big difference when they grow in! 

 

 

 

I also appreciate the flowers! They could use a bed, but I'll take it! (Also for anyone with a keen eye, no those trees aren't dead, just late bloomers, I checked). 

Does anyone know when all the ne[/url]w trees were added to Willard Park? These will make a big difference when they grow in! 
 

 

 
I also appreciate the flowers! They could use a bed, but I'll take it! (Also for anyone with a keen eye, no those trees aren't dead, just late bloomers, I checked). 
[/url]

Whoever was responsible for the Trees along Euclid in University circle needs to oversee these (and opportunity corridor, those trees are a lost cause)

While I was at Mulberry’s this weekend, I spotted something odd about this mural of old time public square:



Notice the depression, water feature, and bridge across from Terminal Tower where public square now is - anyone know more about this? Super curious.

Old photos would be cool too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Here are a couple images I found on the internet.