What the heck has happened to the trees lining the Mall around the convention center!?  Sorry for the bad quality, but big swaths look like they are dead.  These were nicely maturing trees too!

 

EDIT: Forgot about the Photobucket issues with posting pics, won't work for me.  But the trees along Mall C near city hall are the ones I see appear to be dead.

 

I have no idea what kind of trees they are, but I was out yesterday and was wondering if it was some sort of a disease. You would've thought it was fall outside there were so many leaves on the ground.

 

The same trees are in Public Square and doing just fine, but the ones in the mall are drying up and dropping their leaves all over. I didn't notice by City Hall yesterday, but Mall B looks terrible.

E. 9 St Improvements. http://www.cleveland19.com/story/36295422/east-9th-street-improvements-underway-parking-bans-expected

I swear sometimes there must be a committee for the city whose sole purpose is to create new ways to make downtown as ugly as possible.  What is THIS.  There are more along East 12th...

^ I'm hoping that thing is temporary.

I swear sometimes there must be a committee for the city whose sole purpose is to create new ways to make downtown as ugly as possible.  What is THIS.  There are more along East 12th...

 

I have no clue. The first one I saw was on Euclid at the east bound E 19th HealthLine Station.

I'm not sure if it's just me, but the first shot makes Public Square look terrible.  I know it only shows a very small corner of it, but it almost looks like it caught on fire. 

I have no clue. The first one I saw was on Euclid at the east bound E 19th HealthLine Station.

 

 

Yea, they sure do make the area look bad!!!

 

They look like some kind of temporary power poles??  Strange.

I have no clue. The first one I saw was on Euclid at the east bound E 19th HealthLine Station.

 

 

Yea, they sure do make the area look bad!!!

 

They look like some kind of temporary power poles??  Strange.

 

It's hard to see in the above pics, but in this picture you can see that there are a number of small cameras on the poles

 

I noticed them for the first time yesterday too at E12th and Superior. I was trying to figure out if they were for the signals (vehicle detection) or other (public safety) but couldn’t really tell.

Maybe self-driving cars? :)

It looks like the Pics by mrclifton88 is at the north east corner of Public Square [/member] Key Tower and it's temp electric service for the exterior work around Key Tower.

I hope so!

It looks like the north east corner of Public Square [/member] Key Tower and it's temp electric service for the exterior work around Key Tower.

 

Maybe in this location (I haven’t seen it) but not the others. They are definitely cameras.

It’s for an RTA test. Thankfully. http://www.riderta.com/news/feb-6-2018-rta-and-battelle-testing-safety-technologies

Figured it had to be temporary as those set-ups looked it.

Figured it had to be temporary as those set-ups looked it.

 

Temporary can become permanent in Cleveland faster than you can say "Frank Jackson"...  ::)

 

 

So we're going to blanket the city with an array of IR sensors, GPS, and god knows what else, so that the RTA drivers can continue to blow around corners without looking for pedestrians?

So we're going to blanket the city with an array of IR sensors, GPS, and god knows what else, so that the RTA drivers can continue to blow around corners without looking for pedestrians?

 

But the bus warns you to "watch out" as it turns ...

What's the over/under on days until a RTA driver takes one of these poles out?  ;D

This can't come soon enough! Cleveland is moving forward with plans to start replacing streetlights with LED's. And ODOT is replacing streetlights along 77 north of 480 with LED's. Work has been going on for a month or more.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/04/cleveland_to_upgrade_street_li.html

 

Cleveland to upgrade street lights, post security cameras to bolster neighborhood safety

 

CLEVELAND, Ohio - The city plans to erect thousands of high-tech street lights equipped with security cameras in a program aimed at making neighborhoods safer.

 

The citywide effort, dubbed the Safe Smart CLE Initiative, will enable police to brighten lights in trouble spots and monitor camera-covered areas in real time.

...

What's the plan?

 

The city intends to convert its 61,000 street lights to an LED system that can be controlled via remote control and will alert the city when a light fails. 

 

The LED lights will provide more illumination than the conventional street lights, improving visibility and clarity, Robert Davis, Cleveland's director of public utilities, said.

 

Interactive technology built into the lights will allow Cleveland Public Power to closely monitor the system. Alerts from the system, such as when a light goes out, will allow for more efficient maintenance.

Finally!!

1) Superior between West 6th and Public Square is FINALLY getting repaved this summer.

 

http://www.downtowncleveland.com/news/june-2018/superior-avenue-resurfacing-project

 

2) What should we replace the LeBron banner with?

 

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/this-is-why-people-walking-near-public-square-are-fed-up

 

I hope Superior Ave resurfacing includes the sidewalks

Step on a crack.....you might just fall and break your own back?

Step on a line, break your momma's spine....

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/cle-dead-tree-trouble-for-odot-shoreway-beautification-project

Trees left dead on Cleveland Memorial Shoreway less than a year after being planted

CLEVELAND - Dozens of newly planted trees lining Cleveland's Memorial Shoreway from Downtown Cleveland to Edgewater park seem to be dead or may be dying.The trees planted in Oct. 2017 are part of the Ohio Department of Transportation's massive $41.5M Lakefront West beautification project.

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/cle-dead-tree-trouble-for-odot-shoreway-beautification-project

Trees left dead on Cleveland Memorial Shoreway less than a year after being planted

CLEVELAND - Dozens of newly planted trees lining Cleveland's Memorial Shoreway from Downtown Cleveland to Edgewater park seem to be dead or may be dying.The trees planted in Oct. 2017 are part of the Ohio Department of Transportation's massive $41.5M Lakefront West beautification project.

 

"Community Activist Robert Carillio" is a guy we know, used to post here a lot.  I commend him for trying to do something about this.  Personally, I don't think the answer is throwing more labor at it, I think we should just avoid such plantings in the future.  Same thing happened with the Euclid Corridor, we spent millions planting dead stuff everywhere.  Just stop. 

they should should plant trees that are more durable in urban areas.

they should should plant trees that are more durable in urban areas.

 

These trees were not killed by urbanity.  Other trees in the vicinity, and all around town, are doing fine.  These trees were placed in an absurd situation by absurd planning.  There was never enough room in this ROW for a median with trees.  And even in a best case scenario, where all the trees lived, their presence only blocks your views rather than enhancing them.  That's usually why they're installed on suburban residential streets.  But this is a major highway along the coast heading toward a city skyline in both directions-- it makes no sense as a greenspace boulevard.

Yes, as you've attempted to say many times before. The trees planted along the new median of Clifton Boulevard are doing just fine.

Planting trees in a median is not absurd. And this is not a major highway. It’s a short extension of Clifton blvd. Trees in the Clifton section median are doing fairly well after a couple years—and the city arborist has replaced those trees that did not make it. That is how this is supposed to work.

 

And the median along the shoreway is nice and wide. Approximately 12 feet. That is much wider than some tree lawns in those suburban communities you are referencing.

Planting trees in a median is not absurd. And this is not a major highway. It’s a short extension of Clifton blvd. Trees in the Clifton section median are doing fairly well after a couple years—and the city arborist has replaced those trees that did not make it. That is how this is supposed to work.

 

And the median along the shoreway is nice and wide. Approximately 12 feet. That is much wider than some tree lawns in those suburban communities you are referencing.

 

There were also issues with the types of trees that were installed. From what I understand, the design firm that worked on the Shoreway warned ODOT that the type of trees that they selected would not fare well in that environment. But ODOT didn't heed their recommendation and went with those trees anyway.

Same thing happened with the Euclid Corridor, we spent millions planting dead stuff everywhere.  Just stop. 

 

This is way overly harsh. There are a lot of rough stretches, especially between Public Square and E55th, maybe because of the tougher light and heat conditions from larger/closer buildings and higher traffic, but east of 55th, there are some really great stretches of flourishing trees.

 

This is near the new townhosue development in the east 70s (pic from 11 months ago): https://goo.gl/maps/g2ekmrDSbyE2

Near the Clinic: https://goo.gl/maps/gTRpC24LW5A2

 

And the trees in the medians of Euclid through University Circle are doing shockingly well.

 

August 2009: https://goo.gl/maps/bF1K9WqXAuA2

August 2017: https://goo.gl/maps/ymKgH1EWwVQ2

 

 

I do hope someone is out there taking field notes, because the Euclid Corridor provided a pretty good testing ground for a pretty wide selection of trees, including some disease-resistant elms, I believe.

Yes, as you've attempted to say many times before. The trees planted along the new median of Clifton Boulevard are doing just fine.

 

Different kind of planting, one that works.  Also a different kind of road.

 

Same thing happened with the Euclid Corridor, we spent millions planting dead stuff everywhere.  Just stop. 

This is way overly harsh. There are a lot of rough stretches, especially between Public Square and E55th, maybe because of the tougher light and heat conditions from larger/closer buildings and higher traffic, but east of 55th, there are some really great stretches of flourishing trees.

 

Part of the problem along lower Euclid was a fight over who would be responsible for maintenance.  Remember?  Some of those planters near CSU never got plantings as a result.  Many filled up with weeds, since the last thing installed was sprinklers.

 

We paid millions to install all these planters.  Pointing out that some of them are OK doesn't help the fact that many aren't.  I'm sorry, that's an awful standard.  They should all be OK.  If lower Euclid is too gosh darned urban for trees to work there-- someone should figure that out before we assign them half our sidewalk space and limit outdoor seating along Main Street. 

 

How big is the budget in the arborist department?  I ask because we keep putting more on their plate.  Does every entity required to maintain these have their own arborist department?  If we need such things just to make these plantings work, and it's this hard, we might want to consider alternative ways to improve our streetscapes.

I noticed today all the planters on Chester in front of the new Washkewicz building are just filled with weeds. So annoying.

Most major cities have arborists. They are a critical function of a city. They raise property values, lower urban temperatures, and collect storm water in addition to improving aesthetics and air quality.

 

You are right that we must pick the most appropriate tree for each space. Even then, things can go wrong. Trees become quite shocked by being uprooted, transported and replanted. There has never been a project the size of the shoreway where every tree has survived.

There's a pretty standard number out there for the attrition rate for newly planted trees in an urban environment.  I don't remember what it is offhand, but it's fairly high.  A fairer criticism is that they are slow to replace dead trees, but even then, there is a certain time of year they want to plant them, not just immediately when a few are found dead.

Tree maintenance in CLE is a huge pet peeve of mine. When I visit downtown I am interested in the health of the trees as much as I am interested in the progress of development. Same for visiting other metros and one thing I've noticed is that many other cities have figured out how to maintain a healthy tree canopy while we sadly have not. Doing a little research into the subject I find that, not surprisingly, it takes political will (often just a small cadre of leaders) more than anything.

 

 

When Richard Daily was mayor of Chicago he placed a great emphasis on the beautification of the downtown AND IT SHOWED. Other cities have managed to pull that off too but not here. The finger pointing between ODOT, the city and the Metroparks is a perfect example of why we can't seem to figure it out. We don't spend the money properly. No one takes ownership and no one takes the time to research what plantings work and what it takes to maintain them, hence dead and dying trees.

 

 

It's not our climate or urban environment it is simply the lack of people to champion our urban forest.

 

 

 

 

That’s a great point, though I would say the recently completed cleveland tree plan along with the recent tax increase SHOULD show improvements for the city’s tree canopy. The plan addressed a number of the issues you raise.

The tree canopy in Downtown Cleveland is significantly better than it was when I lived there for the first time in the late 90's, when it was practically nonexistent.  I don't think we should be blind to that.

Cleveland has a wonderful tree canopy.  And I'm sure we need an arborist.  I just don't want them working in the middle of the street all the time.  Even if all these boulevard plantings had worked out perfectly, they still don't constitute a forest.  Forests aren't linear and they don't involve concrete.

We can argue about the median being a good or bad location for trees, but cleveland does not have a good tree canopy. The cleveland tree plan showed that cleveland has 19% coverage by trees. Pittsburgh has 40%, Cincy 38%, DC 35%, New York 24%. Only Chicago and Indy (of the 9 comparison communities) had lower tree canopy coverage (17 and 14%)

Tree maintenance in CLE is a huge pet peeve of mine. When I visit downtown I am interested in the health of the trees as much as I am interested in the progress of development. Same for visiting other metros and one thing I've noticed is that many other cities have figured out how to maintain a healthy tree canopy while we sadly have not. Doing a little research into the subject I find that, not surprisingly, it takes political will (often just a small cadre of leaders) more than anything.

 

When Richard Daily was mayor of Chicago he placed a great emphasis on the beautification of the downtown AND IT SHOWED. Other cities have managed to pull that off too but not here. The finger pointing between ODOT, the city and the Metroparks is a perfect example of why we can't seem to figure it out. We don't spend the money properly. No one takes ownership and no one takes the time to research what plantings work and what it takes to maintain them, hence dead and dying trees.

 

It's not our climate or urban environment it is simply the lack of people to champion our urban forest.

 

 

It's called paying attention to details, and Cleveland sucks at it. Not just the city, but the RTA, county, many of its suburbs and others. One of the few that gets it right is the Metroparks.

We can argue about the median being a good or bad location for trees, but cleveland does not have a good tree canopy. The cleveland tree plan showed that cleveland has 19% coverage by trees. Pittsburgh has 40%, Cincy 38%, DC 35%, New York 24%. Only Chicago and Indy (of the 9 comparison communities) had lower tree canopy coverage (17 and 14%)

 

The Forest City ™

We can argue about the median being a good or bad location for trees, but cleveland does not have a good tree canopy. The cleveland tree plan showed that cleveland has 19% coverage by trees. Pittsburgh has 40%, Cincy 38%, DC 35%, New York 24%. Only Chicago and Indy (of the 9 comparison communities) had lower tree canopy coverage (17 and 14%)

 

I don't know how this metric is supposed to work, but the idea that New York has more tree coverage than Cleveland is hard to believe.  Think about that. 

I'm sure Central Park plays a huge part.

I'm curious to learn of the methodology, too. I think Cincinnati and Pittsburgh probably benefit from having huge swaths of densely forested hillsides. I don't think of Cleveland as being particularly void of trees...

Well. The typical way that tree canopy coverage is measured is that detailed LiDAR aerials are taken and are run through gis to differentiate between trees, ground vegetation, impervious coverage, water, etc. the percent between tree coverage and total acreage is the percent.

You can google “cleveland tree plan” or go to Cuyahoga county’s urban tree canopy assessment for data locally

We can argue about the median being a good or bad location for trees, but cleveland does not have a good tree canopy. The cleveland tree plan showed that cleveland has 19% coverage by trees. Pittsburgh has 40%, Cincy 38%, DC 35%, New York 24%. Only Chicago and Indy (of the 9 comparison communities) had lower tree canopy coverage (17 and 14%)

 

I don't know how this metric is supposed to work, but the idea that New York has more tree coverage than Cleveland is hard to believe.  Think about that. 

 

Staten Island and Queens are big and have lots of trees.