This circa 1928 photo has the Landmark Building completed thanks to a little artwork done at that time. Several other structures in the Cleveland Union Terminal Group weren't yet completed, including the new Higbee's department store.

This really puts it into perspective how narrow Terminal Tower really is. Really don't like that look at all, thank goodness for the Higbee building lol.

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

If you look at the pic the part that wasn't constructed is actually not all that big. It's amazing to me that they just didn't finish it. Unless the 1929 crash killed the finished product.

 

I'm actually too lazy to do the research to answer my own speculation since l'm traveling overseas now.

On 10/11/2023 at 12:25 PM, MyPhoneDead said:

Ask for protected bike lanes and you shall receive. They were going up as I took these pictures.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

 

I love this, but I did a quick count on my commute home on Detroit last night, and all but 3 of the "barriers" are either gone or destroyed already. We've gotta get something that won't be destroyed by plows or bad drivers. 

17 hours ago, cadmen said:

If you look at the pic the part that wasn't constructed is actually not all that big. It's amazing to me that they just didn't finish it. Unless the 1929 crash killed the finished product.

 

I'm actually too lazy to do the research to answer my own speculation since l'm traveling overseas now.

The Van Sweringen brothers were, to say the least, overleveraged on speculative railway stocks... and they saw  their own fortunes and the fortunes of several bankers be destroyed as a result. 

On 10/20/2023 at 11:56 AM, YABO713 said:

 

I love this, but I did a quick count on my commute home on Detroit last night, and all but 3 of the "barriers" are either gone or destroyed already. We've gotta get something that won't be destroyed by plows or bad drivers. 

One argument I've seen against hard, immovable barriers is that there are legitimate safety concerns when the road has no shoulder or any type of egress exit. One example that is often brought up is emergency vehicles, which often drive on the shoulder to bypass heavy traffic. I can also envision problems with cars breaking down. These flexible barriers are a sort of compromise that allows cars that really need to get off the road the ability to do so, while still offering separation for bicyclists.

 

To be honest, I don't have a response to that argument, and I'm wondering if some of the people on here who are more versed in this stuff have considered it. 

 

Edit:

 

Me: Hi website full of urbanists, I encountered this anti-urbanist argument and I'm not sure how to best refute it. What would be the best counterargument? 

 

UrbanOhio: sorry, no counterarguments, but have some downvotes! 

34 minutes ago, Ethan said:

One argument I've seen against hard, immovable barriers is that there are legitimate safety concerns when the road has no shoulder or any type of egress exit. One example that is often brought up is emergency vehicles, which often drive on the shoulder to bypass heavy traffic. I can also envision problems with cars breaking down. These flexible barriers are a sort of compromise that allows cars that really need to get off the road the ability to do so, while still offering separation for bicyclists.

 

To be honest, I don't have a response to that argument, and I'm wondering if some of the people on here who are more versed in this stuff have considered it. 

I'd get that on a 2 lane street, but both Detroit and Lorain also have turning lanes for most of the roadway

You are arguing that cars need access to the bike lane so they can block that stream of traffic in the event that they break down? That is a very carbrained defense. 

1 hour ago, Balkmusic said:

You are arguing that cars need access to the bike lane so they can block that stream of traffic in the event that they break down? That is a very carbrained defense. 

The argument (which I never presented as mine) is that there are safety reasons cars and emergency vehicles might need access to the shoulder. I've seen others make somewhat compelling arguments that hard barriers (such as a jersey barrier) between vehicle and bike lane can occasionally cause safety issues. Mostly I was just looking for a quality counterargument, your strawman and ad-homenim are counterproductive. Yabo, however, does make a good point that how legitimate this concern is will depend on multiple road design factors. 

I called that line of defense carbrained, not you, so there is no homenim being ad-ed. I'm not trying to offend anyone here, and know you were presenting an argument that may not be your own. I should have said "the argument is" instead of "you are arguing."

 

In any case the argument that cars should be able to access a bicycle lane to store their defective personal property isn't compelling to me. I personally value a physical, permanent barrier that protects the more vulnerable road users. 

"store their defective personal property"

 

phrases like these are why people don't take bicycle advocates seriously.

13 minutes ago, Whipjacka said:

"store their defective personal property"

 

phrases like these are why people don't take bicycle advocates seriously.

 

If this were a 2 lane city street would you suggest the car hop the curb onto the sidewalk to make room for traffic? I think he's arguing if you don't consider the sidewalk a reliever or part of the street right of way, why would you consider the bike lane?

I agree with you. 

Sort of like how if Euclid was a 1 lane street nobody would ever stop and block traffic. But, since there's a bus lane, park wherever you want and make all the other people drive in the bus lane. 

 

 

20 hours ago, originaljbw said:

Sort of like how if Euclid was a 1 lane street nobody would ever stop and block traffic. But, since there's a bus lane, park wherever you want and make all the other people drive in the bus lane. 

MarbleRoomValet has entered the chat....

 

10 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

MarbleRoomValet has entered the chat....

 

 

idk where to have this discussion, but I get irked when you see permanent valet stands when the business doesn't open until x time. Do valet stands pay the city the 'full value' of the spaces they're taking up? Euclid is a different animal since these places have cutouts specific to their businesses (and hotels) but then you see permanent ones like outside of Mortons where they bagged the meters (and the business isn't even open). 

I think it's mainly the hotels. (9, Schofield, holiday inn) that cUse double parking. would it be possible to have Holiday Inn use short vincent 

Edited October 23, 20231 yr by Whipjacka

I think using Vincent for the Holiday Inn valet would make so much more sense. That being said, I'd also love for an entire refresh of that street - moving valet there could be one piece of it and help lead to the entire spruce-up of that area. Something's gotta be done with the dumpsters and general poor quality of the street. Relocate the valet there, consolidate / cover the dumpsters in some cool looking enclosures, repave the street, add some public art, new lighting, and landscaping, and boom - a million times better for everyone while helping to solve the Euclid Ave car issue at the same time.

 

FWIW - our team at Downtown Cleveland, Inc. definitely wants improvements like these here and has it on our radar. We'll continue to advocate for this stuff and see what we can do ourselves.

It will be interesting to see what the new hotelier there will want in terms of a valet setup.

if you happen to be in london there is a julie mehretu show up at white cube - if not, cool pix of her latest on the gallery link — 👍

 

 

 

Julie Mehretu

They departed for their own country another way (a 9x9x9 hauntology)

 

15 September – 5 November 2023

 

Location

White Cube Bermondsey

144 – 152 Bermondsey Street 
London SE1 3TQ

 

 

Directing a focus towards enduring conflict, widespread displacement and the asymmetry of power, Mehretu takes as her subject images sourced from current affairs media, in particular the ongoing war in Ukraine and the events of the US Capitol insurrection of 6 January 2021.

 

 

more:

https://www.whitecube.com/gallery-exhibitions/julie-mehretu-bermondsey-2023

 

 

 

 

City Hall greenlights 5 new streets in Cleveland’s Buckeye-Woodhill neighborhood

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Five new streets will be built in Cleveland’s Buckeye-Woodhill neighborhood as part of efforts to replace the city’s second-oldest housing complex, and build apartments and townhomes around it.

https://www.cleveland.com/metro/2023/10/city-hall-greenlights-5-new-streets-in-clevelands-buckeye-woodhill-neighborhood.html

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

While it is nice to see Euclid Avenue with some holiday lights I am not sure what these are supposed to represent.  I miss a good traditional theme that has some character and draw for the young at heart. Does anyone know what the inspiration is?  Side note to The City, many of the center island street lamps are turned parallel to the street rather than their uniform perpendicular placement.  

On 10/11/2023 at 1:31 PM, dwolfi01 said:

Yeah I was gonna say that. I hate being negative but the ones they put up on Detroit west of W25th were gone within weeks after they made a big deal about putting them in. You can see videos on YouTube of motorists having fun purposefully running things like these over.

 

Good step to take but this is by no way permanent. We need some solid (pun intended) solution implemented to protect major bike lanes like these.

I'd suggest adding a concrete barrier periodically -- maybe every 50 feet -- just enough to make swerving into the bike lane just to take out plastic/fiberglass pylons a bit more difficult.

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

I'd suggest adding a concrete barrier periodically -- maybe every 50 feet -- just enough to make swerving into the bike lane just to take out plastic/fiberglass pylons a bit more difficult.

 

was thinking this the other night on my way to the budget convo at Happy Dog. Have a concrete one mixed in with the plastic ones so that folks joyriding over them regret it real quick.

21 hours ago, GISguy said:

 

was thinking this the other night on my way to the budget convo at Happy Dog. Have a concrete one mixed in with the plastic ones so that folks joyriding over them regret it real quick.

I accidentally hit one of those plastic lane markers over by the Warrensville Circle by John Carroll a few years ago --- and it cracked my side mirror.  They do have some give at the base but they seem to be pretty stiff (like one of those skinny whiffle ball bats, but fiberglass -- they're not soft flexible plastic)

Anyone know what is holding up the last of the sodium vapor street lights from being replaced with LED bulbs?

5 hours ago, urb-a-saurus said:

Anyone know what is holding up the last of the sodium vapor street lights from being replaced with LED bulbs?

 

They may be first energy poles...there's a few parts of the city that are theirs... @GREGinPARMAmight have more insight....

 

Fwiw, their site is showing 88% complete

 

https://cdmsmith.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1c448337c6f8498c92c139b073e8d60c

Edited December 9, 20231 yr by GISguy

 
They may be first energy poles...there's a few parts of the city that are theirs... [mention=3862]GREGinPARMA[/mention]might have more insight....
 
Fwiw, their site is showing 88% complete
 
https://cdmsmith.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1c448337c6f8498c92c139b073e8d60c

This may explain why my street literally has ONE old light pole. The rest are LED's then you see one orange ugly light.

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

On 12/8/2023 at 5:17 AM, dave2017 said:

While it is nice to see Euclid Avenue with some holiday lights I am not sure what these are supposed to represent.  I miss a good traditional theme that has some character and draw for the young at heart. Does anyone know what the inspiration is?  Side note to The City, many of the center island street lamps are turned parallel to the street rather than their uniform perpendicular placement.  

Needs trees

i dont think euclid does. at least not right downtown. or maybe a block here or there would be alright.

 

that said, it would be cool to have one downtown ave fully lined with trees on both sides. like say payne to the innerbelt. something like that would be an interesting surprize.

9 hours ago, mrnyc said:

i dont think euclid does. at least not right downtown. or maybe a block here or there would be alright.

 

that said, it would be cool to have one downtown ave fully lined with trees on both sides. like say payne to the innerbelt. something like that would be an interesting surprize.

Euclid looks dead without trees - it needs some greenery and life. It looks like a concrete jungle right now. Even hanging flower baskets on the light posts would help. A pocket park here and there would be great.

^ euclid downtown is the main urban street, i dont think its appropriate to line it with trees. show off the city there. more people will liven it up. it used to be very lively this time of year during the dept stores era, so its people that make it that way. if i were kang of the cleve i’d rather euclid and other downtown streets get road diets and wider sidewalks. then maybe we could talk some trees. but for now yeah for sure those other things would be great. you can’t have enough festive decorations, pocket parks, dog parks and small squares and the like to build around. i hope somebody in city hall is planning ahead for these things.

16 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

^ euclid downtown is the main urban street, i dont think its appropriate to line it with trees. show off the city there. more people will liven it up. it used to be very lively this time of year during the dept stores era, so its people that make it that way. if i were kang of the cleve i’d rather euclid and other downtown streets get road diets and wider sidewalks. then maybe we could talk some trees. but for now yeah for sure those other things would be great. you can’t have enough festive decorations, pocket parks, dog parks and small squares and the like to build around. i hope somebody in city hall is planning ahead for these things.

I strongly dispute the notion that a tree lined street is somehow less "urban" than a treeless concrete jungle. As I understand your point the aesthetics of a big city feel has historically squeezed out trees, but I'd argue that to the extent that has happened it has been a mistake, and moving forward city planners need to prioritize tree canopy. The beneficial effects on ameliorating the urban heat island effect and reducing stress haven been shown, and I don't think we can afford to treat urban tree canopies as a "nice to have" but not necessary afterthought anymore. 

^ i didnt say anything against tree lined city streets, in fact i suggested one above, so i dk where you got that idea.

 

i just said the downtown portion of euclid is not one of them. because thats the city’s premier urban street. historically it would be wrong for the street and currently the few trees that are there are pathetic, so its not working anyway. 

 

my idealized thought is to take out the useless divider and a lane, and in its place add more sidewalk space for much more public uses around there like kiosks and benches and etc.

 

in general, there is way, way too much road all around the downtown avenues. imo that is the major streetscape problem in downtown cle (and to be fair other great lakes cities like detroit) and road diets are the answer. that keeps cars off the road which is best of all for the environment.

9 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

i didnt say anything against tree lined city streets, in fact i suggested one above, so i dk where you got that idea.

↓

9 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

 

i just said the downtown portion of euclid is not one of them. because thats the city’s premier urban street.

The implication of your statement is that a "premier urban street" shouldn't have trees. I would claim every single street* should have trees, and that includes Euclid. We need to take urban tree canopy seriously and your suggestion that we should have "one" tree lined street downtown as a nice "surprise" is ridiculous. 

 

Edit: *I should say every street wide enough for trees, but that's every major street in downtown Cleveland. 

Just now, Ethan said:

↓

The implication of your statement is that a "premier urban street" shouldn't have trees. I would claim every single street should have trees, and that includes Euclid. We need to take urban tree canopy seriously and your suggestion that we should have "one" tree lined street downtown as a nice "surprise" is ridiculous. 

 

o rilly? how is it ridiculous? as of today if it was done on payne it would be most definitely be a big surprize to come across.

 

as for other downtown tree lined streets, the far better place to do that would be to the north, like st clair for example would be my top of the list. it would also be more impactful for lakeside and superior. 

 

regardless, you are are putting the car before the horse because ideally road diets need to be done first before any mass planting of trees. 

The ridiculous part is claiming that a city which often bills itself as The Forest City should only have one tree lined street downtown. It's also ridiculous because it's just not a serious answer to problems like the urban heat island effect. 

 

I agree that many streets downtown need reconfigured, but trees don't require large sidewalks to exist, nor are they much of an impediment to density as they just don't take up that much space. While I agree we should generally have wider sidewalks I've seen beautifully tree lined streets with narrow sidewalks. You just need to plant trees that will grow tall enough, take care of them (particularly while they're young and still growing), and then prioritize preserving them when possible when construction inevitably happens. 

 

Euclid has already received a road diet and it is certainly wide enough for trees. It has them in some locations (though they're generally too small). In my mind, the extent that it lacks adequate tree cover reflects negatively on our city. 

36 minutes ago, Ethan said:

The ridiculous part is claiming that a city which often bills itself as The Forest City should only have one tree lined street downtown. It's also ridiculous because it's just not a serious answer to problems like the urban heat island effect. 

 

I agree that many streets downtown need reconfigured, but trees don't require large sidewalks to exist, nor are they much of an impediment to density as they just don't take up that much space. While I agree we should generally have wider sidewalks I've seen beautifully tree lined streets with narrow sidewalks. You just need to plant trees that will grow tall enough, take care of them (particularly while they're young and still growing), and then prioritize preserving them when possible when construction inevitably happens. 

 

Euclid has already received a road diet and it is certainly wide enough for trees. It has them in some locations (though they're generally too small). In my mind, the extent that it lacks adequate tree cover reflects negatively on our city. 

 

except the devil is in the details. you would have to start somewhere to heavy duty tree line a street, so why not a test street? not to mention i literally just listed several other streets where it would be more impactful to do it. plus there is room for more road dieting on euc. 

 

you cannot just plant trees before major road diets, bump outs and and widening sidewalks. they would guaranteed cut them down for that construction. you do it afterward. 

 

what’s ridiculous is you are in effect advocating for cars. less road downtown would be by far the most impactful thing you could do for the environment. larger and more active sidewalks would be more attractive for pedestrians and redevelopments.

 

more trees add to it and are certainly healthy, but they require constant upkeep, so you have to pick and choose thoughtfully about doing that. 

 

again, downtown euclid ave is THE major urban street in cle, so i wouldn’t chose that for heavy duty tree lining, especially over many others. for euclid right now i would focus on encouraging rehabs, whitening dark rooftops, solar power and leed standards insulating for helping the environment.

Let's see now...those of us who want as many trees everywhere in the city as we can get are what? 25-30% of the population? And we don't just need trees planted but trees taken care of after that as you @mrnycsuggested. I daresay most every street would benefit with more trees, including Euclid. 

 

So because we're in the minority and are unlikely to get anything close to what we want, you won't catch me saying we don't need trees on Euclid. 

^ yeah maybe as more are added cle will need a tree force to go around and take care of the trees and plants? who does that now? 

 

anyway, the issue of glaring massive existing roadway to less cars downtown post-covid is the major eyesore and environmental issue. so start getting rid of more lanes along those avenues. hell if we are being idealistic here make superior one way in each direction and line the middle of it with a line of skinny townhouses and apt buildings (or a streetcar!) 😉

 

 

 

Edited December 10, 20231 yr by mrnyc

I would love to see the planters and plantings Bedrock did around Tower City continue all the way down Euclid Ave.  Rumor has it Euclid Avenue is supposed to get a streetscape update.

Not that this is a fair comparison but the Avenue des Champs-Élysées is famously tree-lined. I know elsewhere in France many main roads are tree-lined thanks to Napoleon who back then understood the value of trees for pedestrians (aka soldiers marching). 

^ i was thinking of that, but more for someplace like say superior than euclid. plenty of wide road room to play with there. euclid is more of a fifth ave nyc to me.

I'm not even from Cleveland but yes, Euclid needs trees. I couldn't imagine walking down that concrete desert in 80+ degree weather. Also could you imagine a nice gentle breeze as you loiter about the area? I would even go as far as to advocate for plant walls throughout the area as well. The benefits are known and a little greenery never hurt anyone!

^ well if you think its a concrete desert what are more trees going to do for it? an ostensibly cooler concrete desert is still a desert. 

 

meaning its fine to do of course, but i dont think its the most pressing change needed. the most pressing continues to be more people and businesses. i’d rather make something like superior the champs-elysees. can you imagine? what a change taking out lanes and tree lining that too wide avenue could be.

The Forest City needs trees.

On 12/10/2023 at 5:55 PM, mrnyc said:

 

except the devil is in the details. you would have to start somewhere to heavy duty tree line a street, so why not a test street? not to mention i literally just listed several other streets where it would be more impactful to do it. plus there is room for more road dieting on euc. 

 

you cannot just plant trees before major road diets, bump outs and and widening sidewalks. they would guaranteed cut them down for that construction. you do it afterward. 

 

what’s ridiculous is you are in effect advocating for cars. less road downtown would be by far the most impactful thing you could do for the environment. larger and more active sidewalks would be more attractive for pedestrians and redevelopments.

 

more trees add to it and are certainly healthy, but they require constant upkeep, so you have to pick and choose thoughtfully about doing that. 

 

again, downtown euclid ave is THE major urban street in cle, so i wouldn’t chose that for heavy duty tree lining, especially over many others. for euclid right now i would focus on encouraging rehabs, whitening dark rooftops, solar power and leed standards insulating for helping the environment.

I agree with your general points about incrementalism, but to be honest I think they are obfuscating the fact that we clearly have a different end goal in mind, and a different ideal for the aesthetics of a big city. I think at a certain point we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. 

 

I don't follow your point about how I'm advocating for cars. That seems like a massive stretch. At best I pointed out that tree canopy isn't inherently linked to promoting alternative modes of transportation. A quick glance at many tree-lined, car-friendly streets should make that obvious. Claiming two separate issues are in fact separate issues is not advocating for the second issue. 

 

On 12/10/2023 at 6:06 PM, cadmen said:

Let's see now...those of us who want as many trees everywhere in the city as we can get are what? 25-30% of the population? And we don't just need trees planted but trees taken care of after that as you @mrnycsuggested. I daresay most every street would benefit with more trees, including Euclid. 

 

So because we're in the minority and are unlikely to get anything close to what we want, you won't catch me saying we don't need trees on Euclid. 

Don't confuse the population of this forum for the general population. I'm pretty sure the general public is massively pro-tree. I don't think it's even close. 

 

If anything it's a Nimby problem, as I would expect the percentage of people who want lots of trees on their street is higher than those who want more trees in their yard. After all trees require maintenance, and they have a nonzero percentage chance of falling. 

 

On 12/10/2023 at 6:58 PM, coneflower said:

Not that this is a fair comparison but the Avenue des Champs-Élysées is famously tree-lined. I know elsewhere in France many main roads are tree-lined thanks to Napoleon who back then understood the value of trees for pedestrians (aka soldiers marching). 

 

I saw something somewhere that Paris is also trying to add way more trees. If European cities had the average street width we do, they'd have way more trees. Taking advantage of wide streets basically requires planting trees. 

 

1 hour ago, mrnyc said:

well if you think its a concrete desert what are more trees going to do for it? an ostensibly cooler concrete desert is still a desert. 

...Desert's don't have trees. I understand this point is made in jest, but when people use the colloquial term concrete desert they are talking about the lack of greenery. And even in the real world trees prevent desertification. Cutting down trees literally changes the local climate. 

 

--

 

At the end of the day the big-city, concrete-jungle aesthetic is on it's way out, for both practical and purely aesthetic reasons. Let's make Cleveland look like the big cities of the future, not those of the twentieth century, and that means a greater focus on integrating nature into the urban landscape, not pushing it out. 

^ no, cars and trees downtown are tied together. because more road dieting would be far better for the environment is that is your thing. so you are de facto advocating for cars when you aren't advocating for roads diets over trees along euclid or anywhere. and just basically ignoring that.

 

as for lower euclid, you are advocating for making it something it never was vs. the most urban avenue in the city it is and has always been. just look at the few trees there now. what are they doing for it? not much. keep the focus there on lining it with people and businesses.

 

and finally, while some might like lower euclid tree fully lined, i get it, given resources it would be much more impactful to do that elsewhere. 

11 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

no, cars and trees downtown are tied together. because more road dieting would be far better for the environment is that is your thing. so you are de facto advocating for cars when you aren't advocating for roads diets over trees along euclid or anywhere. and just basically ignoring that.

The environment is one reason out of many for adding trees, it's not the only one. I just told you I'm not advocating for cars here, please don't put words in my mouth.

 

12 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

as for lower euclid, you are advocating for making it something it never was vs. the most urban avenue in the city it is and has always been. just look at the few trees there now. what are they doing for it? not much. keep the focus there on lining it with people and businesses.

One interesting experiment you could try is using the image search of your choice and searching "walkable urban street." Nearly every single picture will have trees, particularly if the street is wider than alley. 

 

Here are several urban street guides advocating for street trees. I don't think you'll be able to find a single counterexample arguing against street trees from an urbanist perspective. If you do it will be in the minority. 

 

https://www.doverkohl.com/blog/2020/6/6/walkable-street-design-5-must-haves-tps-ep-9

 

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/streets/street-design-principles/

 

https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/transportation/complete-streets/

 

52 minutes ago, Ethan said:

The environment is one reason out of many for adding trees, it's not the only one. I just told you I'm not advocating for cars here, please don't put words in my mouth.

 

One interesting experiment you could try is using the image search of your choice and searching "walkable urban street." Nearly every single picture will have trees, particularly if the street is wider than alley. 

 

Here are several urban street guides advocating for street trees. I don't think you'll be able to find a single counterexample arguing against street trees from an urbanist perspective. If you do it will be in the minority. 

 

https://www.doverkohl.com/blog/2020/6/6/walkable-street-design-5-must-haves-tps-ep-9

 

https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/streets/street-design-principles/

 

https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/transportation/complete-streets/

 

I'd like to see, if possible, trees down the center of Euclid too. There's that giant median which could be a great opportunity for some public art and much larger trees. One thing I saw too is Cleveland uses the same type of street tree everywhere, and it doesn't seem to have much shade coverage or big leaves. I'd like to see a little more diversity and much larger root basins - the current ones look to be about 2'x2' which is definitely stunting their growth. Serviceberries are a great option as they bloom with multiple colors a year and offer (edible) berries that birds (even rarer kinds) enjoy. Would be a great boost to the local ecosystem. Lilacs are also very nice and produce big white flowers. There are also redbuds, which have pink flowers in the Spring, green (or purple) leaves in summer, and bright orange and red leaves in the fall. There are so many opportunities for cool foliage, and I just don't think Cleveland is utilizing it.

 

This may be an outlier opinion, but one of the things I really love about Euclid Ave is the unobstructed streetwall.  But I most definitely agree the city needs tons more trees, plus a much more cost-efficient and reliable means of taking care of said trees. Right now (under the current framework) I can't be the only one here who assumes anything new that is planted is just going to die.