Euclid Beach landmark may have to be demolished

Posted Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:21 PM | Contributed by Jeff

The last remnant of Euclid Beach Park may have to be torn down following a car crash into the former entrance arch.

Read more and see B-roll from WEWS/Cleveland.

Related parks

Thursday, January 11, 2007 7:20 PM
Luckly i went last week to get my picture with it :(

its very nice... but in a very bad neighborhood.

If they city cant not raise enough money to fix it... I think we should!*** This post was edited by Mutedarkness 1/11/2007 7:26:24 PM ***

Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:02 PM
The nine years I lived in the neighboring city, I never saw that thing. That's sad that I may never get to see it.
Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:45 PM
That's really sad. My little sister and I lived in trailer park right next door to those apartments with our aunt over a summer back in the early 90's. I used to be so interested in the history of that park, my mother got me a book about it one Christmas. That's a sad thing to lose. I hope it can be repaired, and the women that hit it should be responsible for the repair, since holding automotive insurance is a law here in Ohio, she should be able to do so.
Friday, January 12, 2007 1:20 AM
Took a look at the video on the news site and I don't see why this would possibly have to be torn down.

Temporarily brace it and fix the damaged part.

Friday, January 12, 2007 9:34 AM
I agree... seems like a simple thing, but I'm sure someone doesn't want to spend the money and would rather just get rid of the thing. Typical.
Friday, January 12, 2007 10:57 AM
On my way to work this morning I drove by and took a couple of shots while in my car. There are now boards covering the damage:


Friday, January 12, 2007 11:58 AM
rollergator's avatar To the people who don't understand why on earth we get so uppity about preservation, this must be the absolute end in silly nostalgia...nonetheless, it's still an important link to the history of the area, and SHOULD be fixed. Definitely looks like the damage is relatively minor, structurally.

My guess is that a few folks who WANTED the arch removed saw this as a golden opportunity to press their case...

Friday, January 12, 2007 12:15 PM
If its a city Landmark, they should be obligated to repair it.
Saturday, January 13, 2007 9:20 AM
john peck's avatar Those of you who don't know, according to Cleveland TV News, the accident happened around 2 am and she didn't turn herself in until the next day.

I'll bet she was drunk, I'll also bet she hit it straight on at about 40mph.
But there's nothing to prove that right now until investigators get in there.

And, I will agree, as a Landmark, she should be responsible in fixing it.

Saturday, January 13, 2007 12:54 PM
Jeff's avatar I bet she was just old and blind. That would be about average for the people who live there.
Saturday, January 13, 2007 7:29 PM
john peck's avatar ^ She's 30.
Sunday, January 14, 2007 12:16 AM
If you look at the damage, she didn't hit it straight on. She caught the side of it. It's repairable.
Sunday, January 14, 2007 10:09 PM
It says the arch is located on private property and is a Cleveland landmark. It doesn't say who owns it and is responsible for maintaining it.

If it is the city, they could cry poverty and claim they can't afford to fix it, then tear it down saying it's a hazard. On the other hand, as a historic landmark, it would be subject to tons of rules as to how it could be fixed. Plus the city would be involved in drawing up specs, contracts, and bids. Probably only "approved" contractors could do the work and certainly the driver's insurance company would appeal the cost. So it would probably take years to resolve.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:18 AM
Yeah, those things are a tricky thing to deal with. Still, I would think that someone would fight to get this done before of it's importance to the history of Cleveland.

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC