California Culture: Circa 2000

[methodwriter85]

 

The gay couple really went for it in this version, as opposed to the original. Nice.

Edited April 23, 2014 by methodwriter85

[methodwriter85]

   So...Blue and Private Tim...what do you guys think of the whole "Restore The L.A. River" movement? Do you guys think it will happen, or no? Is it even possible to remove the bulk of the concrete?

 

   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 Grease race scene.

 

   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:

 

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.)

 

Edited to add: 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. Tim and Blue, do 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. LOL.

Edited April 29, 2014 by methodwriter85

[B1ue]

Well, seeing as a "restored" LA river would quite possibly knock me out of a job, nah, I don't really advocate for it.

 

I'll save judgment until I read the full articles, but off the top of my head, I would not guess it to be environmentally sound. We already drain *several* rivers dry to maintain our current water supply. The hell we going to have to do in order to create something that will have long-term effects on our city ports?

 

To paraphrase from the book Good Omens, almost the entire drive of human history has been to get away from nature. And, on a personal level, my entire adult life has been one long charge away from the encroachment of the wilderness. I do not approve of someone whose closest experience of the great outdoors is a couple weeks CAMPING digging up a perfectly serviceable (if admittedly ugly) flood channel and slotting in something that will not do as it is told because they are carried away by the romance of it all. I especially do not approve of this happening a couple blocks from my apartment. Okay, maybe about half a mile, not quite a couple blocks, but still!

Edited April 30, 2014 by B1ue

[methodwriter85]

 

I do not approve of someone whose closest experience of the great outdoors is a couple weeks CAMPING digging up a perfectly serviceable (if admittedly ugly) flood channel and slotting in something that will not do as it is told because they are carried away by the romance of it all. I especially do not approve of this happening a couple blocks from my apartment. Okay, maybe about half a mile, not quite a couple blocks, but still!

 

   Well, this seems to be a general outline of what they're trying to do:

 

1. Create soft-bottom riverbeds and replacing the concrete bank with terraced vegetation where possible, thus allowing for the re-establishment of the riparian habitat, adding wetlands and improving water quality. This will also become a draw for kayakers.The blueprint for this seems to be Glendale Narrows, which did not have a concrete bottom and was able to stay more natural.

 

2. Open up access, build riverfront parks and then connect them with greenways (hiking paths, bike paths, etc) along the River, thus establishing the River as a recreational draw. Glendale has already created a Riverfront Walk.

 

     Special projects:

 

3. LA River-Arroyo Seco Confluence- This proposal calls for widening the river, improving foot and bike paths, re-vegetating river edges with bio-swales, and encouraging redevelopment of surrounding neighborhoods. (However, this is a proposal that was done by a college student, though it seems like this is an area that the revitalization plans have a focus on.)

 

4. Chinatown Cornfields Area- This proposal plans to add to the Los Angeles State Historic Park.The 660-acre Cornfields-Arroyo Seco Specific Plan calls for river greenway area and nature preserve on an artificial island, parking reform, and dozens of miles of bikeways, amid transit-oriented high density residential and commercial development. Unfortunately, land assemblage and real estate realities keep this project in the “maybe” category. Another proposal is for a 60-foot water wheel, called “La Noria,” set to move 28 million gallons of water that would actually help irrigate the state park.  (The Water Wheel seems like it's already in progress.)

 

5. Piggyback Yard- In a plan put forth by FoLAR, the Piggyback Yard Plan intends to create a thriving transit-oriented business district and 130-acre public park just with connectivity to downtown, Union Station, Lincoln Heights and Boyle Heights. The site at present is a 125 acre intermodal rail facility where containers are humped between flat cars and 18 wheelers. The plan calls for reshaping the river channel, creating a soft bottom, slowing down its flow to allow vegetation to grow within its banks and filtering water, forming a thriving ecosystem.

 

     So on and so forth. Here's the article that I took this from.

 

     The Army Corps of Engineers have backed a 453-million plan for restoration that focuses on the 11-mile span of the Los Angeles River beside Griffith Park to Downtown, while the advocates are pushing for a Billion dollar plan, called Alternative 20 which includes the Piggyback Yard Plan.

 

     The 453 million plan calls for:

 

-- restorating the channel along much (but not all) of the 11-mile length of river

-- widening an 80-foot stretch along Taylor Yard terracing the banks and adding "vegetated with overhanging vines and implanted vegetation," plus "significant" restoration of the freshwater marsh there

-- restoring of the historic wash at Piggyback Yard (but not a full redevelopment of the site)

-- increasing the amount of restored habitat by 104 percent

-- restoring connection to the Arroyo Seco watershed by "softening of the bed and banks with development of a riparian corridor in the tributary confluence and for one half mile upstream"

-- adding four miles of trails, a pedestrian tunnel at Taylor Yard, three bridges, two parking lots, three bathrooms, and 19 trail access points.

 

     Advocates are saying that this doesn't do enough to add access to the River, which is why they're pushing for Alternative 20, the billion dollar plan. That one is expected to restore 719 acres instead of the 500-something acres that the 453 million plan does.

 

     I mean, people from this city really should learn more about this no matter what side you're on, because this is a massive project that will unfold over several decades if it goes through, either in the less expensive form, or the billion form. This has the potential to turn into the Los Angeles version of the Big Dig.

 

    In any event...if you got a bike, Blue, it seems like you'll probably be able to bike along the River since it seems like the bare minimum of what they want to do is create a bikeway spanning the entire River. THAT actually seems like a pretty do-able idea. Can't you picture yourself at 40, Blue, biking along the Los Angeles River and stopping off at the latest cafe to open up for a quick breakfast before going to work?

Edited May 1, 2014 by methodwriter85

[B1ue]

No.

[PrivateTim]

The Los Angeles flood of 1938 killed 115 people in Los Angeles alone and many more deaths in Orange County, and both my grandparents remember it well. It was that flood that led to the cementing if the LA River and all the other major rivers in So Cal. Before the LA Flood of '38 was the Pasadena Flood in 1914 that killed 43 people. So flooding was/is a problem

 

What you don't understand is that Los Angeles is a naturally arid climate so the streams and rivers are very low most of the year, but when the winter and spring storms hit, because of the very high mountains that ring the LA basin, water comes screaming out of them and are extremely dangerous. Here is a video of how the LA River can be.

 

<media>

 

 

LA County Fire has a Swift Water Rescue Team because every year people wind up in the culverts. I remember one year just before the Rose Bowl I was in the Rose Bowl parking lot and a bunch of firemen were standing around a culvert and the water was raging. Normally there might be an inch in it, now is was ten feet deep and moving at 35 miles an hour. Anyone falling in would be gone in an instant. Some tourists from Ohio walked by and started looking too, but wasn't sure what they were supposed to see. Finally they asked what we were looking at. I said, "the water" and they looked at us all like we were crazy. So I asked them, "do you know where you are?" and they said "sure, Pasadena." I said, "no, this is the Arroyo Seco. That means 'dry creek'. There wasn't an inch of water in there three days ago. I am not sure they believed me.

 

So while it would be nice to see a restored river, it is really not worth the cost or risk.

[B1ue]

5. Piggyback Yard- In a plan put forth by FoLAR, the Piggyback Yard Plan intends to create a thriving transit-oriented business district and 130-acre public park just with connectivity to downtown, Union Station, Lincoln Heights and Boyle Heights. The site at present is a 125 acre intermodal rail facility where containers are humped between flat cars and 18 wheelers. The plan calls for reshaping the river channel, creating a soft bottom, slowing down its flow to allow vegetation to grow within its banks and filtering water, forming a thriving ecosystem.

Wait. Hold the f up. Do you not realize what I do for a living?

 

Furthermore, do they have any idea what an active railyard does to the ground beneath it?

 

Also, the website linked has several slanted comments and at least three flat out lies. AND I'VE ONLY READ ONE PAGE. Although this:

 

"Union Pacific did test a two-mile long [560 containers] train, but found that no sidings in the L.A. Corridor could accommodate it." I remember that one. And oh wow did they get in trouble for that one, although even that line is inaccurate. The train in question was actually closer to 3 miles (1500 ft., including locomotives if I remember correctly). And it shut down everything until they managed to get it into the desert and away from high density population areas. I was pretty entertained by all this, because it wasn't my fault. Not for my boss's lack of trying, mind, but the important thing is I didn't have a thing to do with that one.

 

Freight trains that are actually two miles long (or, more accurately, 10438 ft., but what's 122 ft. between friends?) are relatively routine for the LA corridor. While it is true that no sidings can contain those beasts, the SOP is simply that you accept that they aren't getting put in a siding.

Edited May 1, 2014 by B1ue

[Mark Arbour]

Wait. Hold the f up. Do you not realize what I do for a living?

 

 

What do you do for a living?

[B1ue]

I work at one of the bigger railyards in Los Angeles county. My job title is extremely vague, my duties are many and varied, but my biggest responsibility is planning freight trains. I tend to not talk about it, but I could have sworn I at least mentioned I worked at a railyard.

Edited May 1, 2014 by B1ue

[methodwriter85]

No.

 

 

     I thought you hated driving, though? I figured you'd be all for bike lanes and the like.

 

 

Wait. Hold the f up. Do you not realize what I do for a living?

 

Well, Blue, the Piggyback Yard Plan isn't really a go/reality the way the Glendale Riverwalk is, so I'd chill for now, but the "Restore the L.A. River!" moment seem to have had some pretty solid accomplishments so far:

 

- Getting the L.A. River declared a "traditionally navigable river"

 

-Opening up sections of the L.A. River for summer kayaking year-round (It started out as a pilot program but now it's here to say)

 

-Building Riverfront Parks/Riverwalks

 

-Getting bike lanes put in

 

     There's already some pretty significant investment being put into the River, like the 10-million dollar Water Wheel, which was just approved. It's both an art thing as well as an irrigation project to water the L.A. State Historic Park.

 

      It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. I don't think Alternative 20 will happen, but even the cheaper plan, Alternative 13, is still pretty costly. And if there's one thing California seems prime at, it's grass-roots lobbying.

 

 

LA County Fire has a Swift Water Rescue Team because every year people wind up in the culverts

 

     Right. Imagine what it'll be like if the Friends of the L.A. River manage to open up the entire span to the public, which is what they want to do.

 

      For me, on one hand, the 6-year old in me who loved watching Captain Planet loves the idea of Los Angeles turning their concrete river into something more natural. However, the other part of me thinks that the lobbyists for this have WAAAAYYYYY too many expectations for something that's essentially a desert wash, and for the kind of investment they want to do to be worth it, they'd need to drain out another river in order to have the water needed.

 

     And seriously, Los Angeles gets beautiful weather, an ocean, mountains, and beautiful hills. Why are people aiming to try and turn it into a "great river city"? (Answer: Property Values! Cynical, but yeah.)

 

     I think the whole thing kind plays into the vibe I'm getting from reading about Los Angeles. It feels like they've got a "shift" going on- from being the proud anti-city (as Private Tim put it) and biggest example of suburban sprawl, to trying to build more of a dense skyscraper feel and getting more people to live in their downtown, and I guess this plays into this. The affluent 20/30-somethings they want to attract to Los Angeles want attractive recreational activities to go along with their hip lofts, and the lack of downtown public recreation space is a negative.

Edited May 1, 2014 by methodwriter85

[B1ue]

Well, Blue, the Piggyback Yard Plan isn't really a go/reality the way the Glendale Riverwalk is, so I'd chill for now,

 

I would hope not. That was appalling to read, both as someone who lives here and someone that works in that industry. I'll be honest, I wasn't really excited by your initial synopsis, but now the whole thing is tainted after reading that one page.

 

Parenthetically, Tim's comment reminded me of something from my childhood. "Arroyo Seco" was pointed out to me by my dad when he was explaining to my sisters and I the difference between Spanish vs. English noun-adjective placement. Which is probably why "seco" is one of the words in Spanish I don't have to think about to translate.

[Mark Arbour]

The Los Angeles flood of 1938 killed 115 people in Los Angeles alone and many more deaths in Orange County, and both my grandparents remember it well. It was that flood that led to the cementing if the LA River and all the other major rivers in So Cal. Before the LA Flood of '38 was the Pasadena Flood in 1914 that killed 43 people. So flooding was/is a problem

 

What you don't understand is that Los Angeles is a naturally arid climate so the streams and rivers are very low most of the year, but when the winter and spring storms hit, because of the very high mountains that ring the LA basin, water comes screaming out of them and are extremely dangerous. Here is a video of how the LA River can be.

 

<media>

 

 

LA County Fire has a Swift Water Rescue Team because every year people wind up in the culverts. I remember one year just before the Rose Bowl I was in the Rose Bowl parking lot and a bunch of firemen were standing around a culvert and the water was raging. Normally there might be an inch in it, now is was ten feet deep and moving at 35 miles an hour. Anyone falling in would be gone in an instant. Some tourists from Ohio walked by and started looking too, but wasn't sure what they were supposed to see. Finally they asked what we were looking at. I said, "the water" and they looked at us all like we were crazy. So I asked them, "do you know where you are?" and they said "sure, Pasadena." I said, "no, this is the Arroyo Seco. That means 'dry creek'. There wasn't an inch of water in there three days ago. I am not sure they believed me.

 

So while it would be nice to see a restored river, it is really not worth the cost or risk.

 

Thanks for posting that, Tim.  I don't think people associate California with floods, but when it rains...it can get scary.  I remember this one.

[methodwriter85]

 

I would hope not. That was appalling to read, both as someone who lives here and someone that works in that industry. I'll be honest, I wasn't really excited by your initial synopsis, but now the whole thing is tainted after reading that one page.

 

    What do you find appalling?

 

 

Thanks for posting that, Tim.  I don't think people associate California with floods, but when it rains...it can get scary.  I remember this one.

 

   Interesting, Mark. It's always interesting to see how geography affects the kind of natural disasters people have to deal with. We have flooding here in the mid-Atlantic, but because the ground is set to be able to absorb the water, it's usually not that disastrous...our real killer is dealing with Nor-Easters and Hurricanes in this part of the country. When Hurricane Sandy happened, Delaware breathed a sign of relief, but we also know that the Big One is probably coming for us someday. The Ash Wednesday Storm of '62 luckily happened when the Delaware Shore was relatively undeveloped, but it's massively developed now, and the damage will be massive if anything like that happens again.

Edited May 1, 2014 by methodwriter85

[B1ue]

    What do you find appalling?

A group dedicated to making what I consider ill-conceived changes is using lies and scare-tactics to create that change. These lies are about something that has directly and indirectly benefitted me my entire life. If this group succeeds, it has the potential to complicate my professional life at the same time that it damages the place I've chosen to live.

 

And, apparently, it's working.

[methodwriter85]

A group dedicated to making what I consider ill-conceived changes is using lies and scare-tactics to create that change. These lies are about something that has directly and indirectly benefitted me my entire life. If this group succeeds, it has the potential to complicate my professional life at the same time that it damages the place I've chosen to live.

 

And, apparently, it's working.

 

It really is a conversation that people of Los Angeles need to have. There is a dedicated movement going on, and there is significant investment going on, with a lot more likely to follow, even if neither the 453 million or 1 billion plan don't go through. This could either turn into a major turning point for the city into a more "Green" city, or it could become a major boondoogle with consequences that will be felt for decades.

Edited May 5, 2014 by methodwriter85

[methodwriter85]

A group dedicated to making what I consider ill-conceived changes is using lies and scare-tactics to create that change. These lies are about something that has directly and indirectly benefitted me my entire life. If this group succeeds, it has the potential to complicate my professional life at the same time that it damages the place I've chosen to live.

 

And, apparently, it's working.

 

 

    Hey though Blue...check out this Friends of the Los Angeles River Promo:

 

 

      I mean, doesn't this make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

 

     It really is strange to me how ambivalent this makes me feel. I think 20-year old Jeremy would have jumped up and on this "Revive the River!" deal, but 28-year old me...half really thinks it's an awesome idea, the other half thinks it's going to be a boondoggle and disaster for the city of Los Angeles.

 

     Here's a mini, 12-minute doc on Los Angeles River kayakers:

 

 

     Do you kayak, Blue? That does kind of look fun. It seems like the ability to kayak was the reason why L.A. River was declared a navigable waterway.

Edited May 8, 2014 by methodwriter85

[B1ue]

      I mean, doesn't this make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

No. I grew up in a forest. Idle greenery does not impress me.

 

Meh, whatever. It's their river. They can do what they want with it. As long as it's kept up with city funds instead of county, and that disaster-waiting-to-happen railyard aspect does not go through, then I'll quit whining.

[methodwriter85]

LOL. It's all about perspective. I grew up in Suburban Delaware, so I like greenery. We only really have pockets of greenery around here- it's all mainly about the cookie-cutter housing and retail developments here.

 

Anyway, to change it up...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6CaKX9O8kY

 

I really wish I could've been around to see the Sherman Oaks Galleria in its Hey Day and original form...it was probably the ultimate hang-out space for the 80's mallrat. Fast Times At Ridgemont High made it look so damn cool. I was also obsessed with Valley Girl...I mean, the movie wasn't actually FILMED at the Galleria, but it did take place there.

 

Outdoor malls are fine, but I miss the old-school, 1980's indoor malls full of neon colors. Though it does look like they did a good job of updating it. Although you apparently have to pay for parking. Paying for parking at a mall doesn't compute with me. I thought the whole point of a mall was that you ddn't have to pay for parking. LOL.

Edited May 8, 2014 by methodwriter85

[mmike1969]

No. The next time it floods, those people will move north. So no.

Edited May 8, 2014 by mmike1969

[methodwriter85]

No. The next time it floods, those people will move north. So no.

 

    Well, the idea seems to be removing the concrete on the bottom, and then replacing the concrete bank with terraced steps, so that it'll keep its flood control ability but look more attractive and let wildlife grow there again:

 

Edited May 8, 2014 by methodwriter85

[B1ue]

And by wildlife they mean "algae."

 

I'm trying to not be too hard on you, since, you know, it's not your idea, but it faces quite a bit of cultural pressure from those of us who have grown up here, and many who've even just lived here for a time. So much pressure, in fact, that I am begrudgingly impressed that they have even gotten this far. Whole generations of Angelinos have been born here thinking of the LA River as "the world biggest toilet." The idea of that becoming something we might willingly visit is, well, the kindest term I can come up with is "paradigm shift."

 

Not to mention that many of us from LA proper associate "parks" with "never, ever, enter after dark or alone."

 

Since you've originally brought it up, I've been sounding out the people I work with to get their thoughts too. Most are from out of state, but a solid minority grew up in the LA area, so I figured they'd be a good cross-sample, even if they are all railroaders of some degree. However, the skepticism that has greeted my explanation of the LATC yard proposal has so far been universal, aside form those who have begun to calculate how we might profit off such a project going up in flames.

[methodwriter85]

It's not a massive movement, in any event. But it does seem like it's gaining interest. I'm ambivalent about this, and even then I think it's pretty interesting.

 

Wildlife IS possible, though:

 

[methodwriter85]

   I'm watching Mega Disasters: LA Quake right now, and dear god...the landscape and weather is beautiful, but the price! Geez. I would live in constant fear that "The Big One" is coming...San Francisco has at least had theirs. Los Angeles hasn't had theirs.

 

   I wonder if San Francisco will get another "big one" before L.A. does, or if L.A.'s luck finally runs out. Could you imagine being stuck in a Los Angeles subway when L.A. finally gets their 7.0+ quake? It's pretty incredible when you look at the footage of the 1994 Northridge quake and realize it was only a 6.7 and was not a "big one."

 

 

   I actually talked to a bunch of Cali people one time, when they were visiting IUP (Western P.A.), and they thought it was cool seeing so many brick buildings, because California doesn't allow new brick buildings to be made, which was because of the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake.

 

  Interestingly enough, we've never seen our CAP clan survive a big California earthquake. I kind of wish we could've seen the 1989 Earthquake...I bet they would have had some interesting experiences in that one.

[PrivateTim]

OMG you so need to move to LA for a year or two to get a grasp on what life is really like in LA..... that hippy dippy girl is so divorced from reality as to what people want in LA.

[methodwriter85]

  Huh? I'm not sure what exactly you're responding to? I was talking about Los Angeles getting it's "Big One"? *is really confused*