Jump to content
  • entries
    262
  • comments
    536
  • views
    147,417

The Los Angeles River "Revitalization"


So have any of you guys heard about the whole "Restore The L.A. River" movement? Do you guys think it will happen, or no? The ideas seems to range from just simply removing concrete in some areas to allow wildlife in parts of it, to trying to turn the L.A. River into Los Angeles's version of Central Park.

 

I learned about L.A.'s channeled river via a special about Los Angeles on E! circa 1997 and thought it was kind of cool that instead of having a real river like East coast cities like New York and Philly do, they have a man-made concrete one. The way it was used in 1997's Volcano was pretty awesome. And of course, the

.

 

Here's an interesting op-ed piece about it:

 

Angelenos' vision of their river is created by made-up memory

 

He used the term "misplaced nostalgia", which I think is interesting. I mean, when I've read about Los Angeles history, it seems like they were always about being "new" and "forward". There's some historic stuff there, but for the most part, Los Angeles is a massive collection of suburban neighborhoods that were built in the mid-to-late 20th century, which were made possible by the irrigation projects of the 1930's. I think he's saying that the L.A. River is born out of a desire for the city to have something that can be a collective part of their historic identity, but it's coming out of something that never really existed. I thought this quote was interesting:

 

Quote

In time, as I traveled to great cities whose identities are inseparable from their rivers, I came to understand that our lack of a "real" one was a flaw in L.A.'s otherwise grand sense of self.

 

As a person who grew up in the Delaware River Valley, the rivers and streams are a massive part of our identity and what it means to be from the greater Philadelphia Area. The Delaware and the Schuylkill Rivers play such a massive part in what Philadelphia is. Maybe those advocates want something similar for Los Angeles- but it doesn't seem like all that viable of a plan if the bulk of the river is dry for 9 months save for sewage and industrial run-off. Can you really turn it into something like what they have with the San Antonio Riverwalk or Philly's rowing crew scene and what-have-you?

 

I mean, L.A. does get fantastic weather, the mountains, awesome hills, and of course the Pacific Ocean. It's okay that it doesn't have much of a river to speak of. LOL. It would be funny though if the plan goes through, and it completely and totally backfires and causes such wonderful things as the introduction of floodplain insurance rates. (I'm assuming Los Angeles wouldn't have that because the flooding is controlled.)

 

I found a bunch of pre-channel pictures of the Los Angeles River. Yeah, the Hudson it ain't. The city is apparently pushing for a billion dollar "restoration" plan, but I'm not sure it'd be worth it in the end unless they find some way to make it so that there's navigable waterways all year round. To actually bring back the river to its "natural" state would be pretty unsatisfying for river recreation and/or riverfront "district" plans. Why would someone pay a bunch of money to live in a condo on a river that's dry for 9 months of the year, and where the bulk of the water is treated wastewater?

 

Still, I think it's interesting that there's this whole grass-roots movement going on. To the Californians here...do any of you guys have friends who try and advocate for the L.A. River? I have the fun mental image of people trying to kayak on this little bit of water in a big concrete ditch.

 

Is this like an actual "thing" in L.A., or just something for fringe dreamers? I think the whole thing is interesting- there's the side of me that loves seeing Concrete City try and bring back more nature into the parts of it that had been paved over, but another part of me thinks that the plans being bandied about don't really seem to fit what the "river" actually is- a desert wash that floods a couple of days a year but mainly exists as a creek with little water for most of it. I think the effort to restore it might lead to disappointment when it turns out that you can't really hold regatta races in there. It's a great idea but I think the enthusiasts might need to temper expectations a bit.

  • Like 2

4 Comments


Recommended Comments

Trebs

Posted

Part of it, yes it was concrete but prior to that, it was a real river.  Even though I live in Sacramento, I've heard of the efforts and I think they're cool.  Yes, the "river" is dry for most of the year, but turning back to the natural state helps bring back the wildlife that is native to the area.

methodwriter85

Posted

Yeah, I'm not against efforts to clean up the river, but I also feel like perhaps there's just a bit too much "pie in the sky" stuff going on. The kind of river you'd get back doesn't really justify trying to spend a billion dollars on it- the 453 million plan sounds fine. You're never going to get something like the Delaware River in Philly or The Hudson in New York City, where the river is a year-round place for recreation and living.

TetRefine

Posted

Both the Philadelphia section of the Delaware and the New York section of the Hudson are disgustingly polluted. Yeah maybe you can boat on it and stuff, but I would never want to swim or anything in either of those rivers' urban section. 

methodwriter85

Posted

True, but they're lovely to walk along to and listen to the sound of the water.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...