The Los Angeles River: Intro to a Case Study in Urban Revitalization
May 8, 2008 by torbjornrive
If there is one environmental movement that can gain near-unanimous support, it is the revitalization of visible, past human impact. Climate Change needs evidence beyond scientific fact in order to become a larger accepted issue - there is no doubt about that. But closer to home, something we at least recognize, are mistakes from past undertakings, which today, make sense to pull back in time in order to benefit the future.
This is an introduction to restoration and revitalization, which go beyond just making things ‘pretty’ again; they aim to restore the integrity of once functioning ecosystems.
Engineers look at the Los Angeles River and see an elegant work of design. It does what it was supposed to do beautifully: Keep flood water away from the city. But to many, it’s mostly an eyesore, and they want it to do more than just speed water out to sea. The City of Los Angeles is hoping to redesign some of the 32 miles of river channel that run through L.A. Over the next year, city engineers and consultants will be developing a master plan for the river. (source)
Creating more parks is the primary goal - for human use and enjoyment - and getting communities involved is integral to that goal. Second, is attempting to create functioning systems so that the area of impact can begin to live again, and even attract natural renewal and species diversification. It should come as no surprise that functioning ecosystems and biodiversity are very important to the health of a city. It was the water which flowed through the flood basin that gave the land its original appeal: fertile soils, functional systems and drinking water. But they were constantly meandering and variable steams. So when repeated floods in the 30’s killed as many as 50 people - between the 1950’s and 60’s the Federal Government deepened and reinforced the river with concrete to create the 32 miles of river as L.A. sees it today.
Unfortunately the vital (flood control) areas of the river may never see soil again, and I believe that they are instead choosing parts of the river closer to communities and existing parks to focus their efforts. I’ve read that up to 45 percent of communities (primarily Hispanic) near the River itself have no access, or are not within walking distance to parks of any kind. Many people generally have no way (and hence limited desire) to experience nature as we know it.
For me, this project represents a milestone in the area of restoration of natural systems. Restoration has seen some hard times, primarily due to lack of funding. I see this first hand in the forest industry where standards are designed to be met (and barely), and those rarely include restoration and revitalization of damaged ecosystems. But I now see a revitalization in the field of restoration - especially with increased funding of urban renewal - so seeing a city such as L.A. charge headfirst into such an endeavor is absolutely enlightening.
This massive project is more than just the revitalization of an old eyesore: it is an attempt to reintroduce the beauty of green space and riparian zones, something which many Angelenos are truly unaware of. I plan to follow and occasionally report on the undertaking as it progresses and evolves.





Wow, thanks for the update. I lived in areas surrounding LA and my first job out of college was literally within a stone’s throw of the LA river (where the 134 and 5 freeways intersect). Nobody talked about the LA river very much other than to say how much of an eyesore it was. I listened to the audio links above and it brought back memories. Homeless people, gangs, kids on skateboards, etc. in the river and the graffiti on the sides. I’m glad to hear they’re actually going to address this nightmare. I guess the environment was way down on the list of priorities when it was “planned”.
Absolutely, the goal was to take care of flooding to allow for development and safety. Getting water out to the ocean as quickly as possible. Nothing wrong with that mindset at the time, but I can hardly image how weak soils in the surrounding area are today.
Yeah, its interesting that you brought up the lack of parks here. We have one giant park (Griffith Park) and a couple other large parks (kenneth hahn) that I think skew the parks/ac of city, or acres of park/resident calculations. Most people have no real access to a park, and most of this river is fenced off (an exception being near Griffith Park). This project could go a long way to change that but I wonder where they will get funding. The city doesn’t have a lot of money coming in, and other priorities (education, health care) will (and probably should) take precedence.
…somewhere on their river project webpage is mention that LA might have the worst park acres per resident ratios. This project would sure pump that up to better levels. And sadly, as you mention, the lack of funding would be the main weakness…
“This segment of the LA River is brought to you by Budweiser…it’s always beer-o-clock in Compton!”….might be the only answer.
“This segment of the LA River is brought to you by Budweiser…it’s always beer-o-clock in Compton!”….might be the only answer.
Thats a great idea, you truly are a resource management consultant. If it works for public transportation and stadiums, why not parks too. However, I do prefer the term “Beer-thirty”.
[...] hat-tip to my Los Angeles urban connection Reid Keller for help in my last posts on L.A…Reid works in the field of urban planning and has added unequivocal value to these two [...]
[...] TV (or a rep, I guess), from San Francisco, emailed me regarding my post about proposed restoration activity on the LA River. I’m flattered, and wonder if Al Gore has [...]
[...] LA River project is one that I’ve written up as being rather groundbreaking. Its goals are listed below, and are predominantly social and [...]
I did some work for Environment Texas some years ago in Austin and one of our major statewide campaigns was to preserve and expand state parks. The Austin grassroots efforts were focused on Barton Springs, a massive natural swimming hole in the middle of the city, right next to where ACL happens every year. Barton Springs is part of the Edwards Aquifer, which feeds San Antonio and every town in between the two cities drinking water, and strip mall developers wanted to build on top of the aquifer, which would have created sewage and chemical runoff enough to render the springs unswimmable and the aquifer poisonous. We stopped the development, fortunately, but it was a close thing. Texas is still however, selling off state park land to to make up for parks funding shortfalls at a rate of millions of acres a year.
Here’s my point. A place like Barton Springs has obvious value. it contributes to the quality of Austin’s life, and is part of a natural system that provides the lifeblood of a city of millions. But every single city and state park has similar, if not as obvious, intrinsic value to humanity. You can’t say that parks must and should take a back seat to education and healthcare, because parks must and should be an integral part of the education and well-being of the population. We are animals, and when we destroy our habitat, we are hurting ourselves. If you’re interested, Environment Texas and University of Texas at Lubbock have published some interesting studies on rates of personal happiness and health corresponding with the presence of accessible parks land. If you can’t take the suspense, I’ll just tell you one thing: They found a direct correllation.
PS if LA likes their concrete river, they may be well advised to have a look at Houston’s drainage situation and ask themselves if attempting to drastically alter the landscape is the most sustainable approach to civic engineering.
Aaron: I’ve moved your comment and my reply to this post at the front:
http://variableinterest.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/la-river-part-ii-restoration-vs-social-enhancement/
(spreading the love)