LA River Part II: Restoration vs. Social Enhancement
Posted by torbjornrive on June 9, 2008
Today, ecosystem care is a response. When we’ve trashed something enough that people start to feel the effects, it’s time for a ‘fix’. When it’s time for a fix, it is usually up to money – and whether it’s there or not – to decide which direction a project moves. Usually, when projects won’t turn quick profit the money won’t show up. The LA River group is likely led by business groups and advised by scientists; to find the money and think long-term, respectively.
The LA River project is one that I’ve written up as being rather groundbreaking. Its goals are listed below, and are predominantly social and economic. It is only groundbreaking because the publicity it will get – and following movements it will spark could be great. But I’m afraid that it may not be as landscape focused as it should be. Landscape restoration (which is what ‘restoration’ should be) takes into account the natural systems that surround a system, as well as the ecosystem at hand. That’s called connectivity, and should be a part of the initial planning phase for any restoration project no matter its size.
LA’s river project looks more like an ‘enhancement’, and much of the riverbank may turn out like this project in San Antonio:
Fair enough. It cannot be denied that the river is highly urbanized. Can we hope that the project will be designed to allow for the river to maintain itself naturally, through natural steam flow and tributaries? Probably not. What I do like is the community awareness and pride aspect. I just hope it encompasses some eco-based pride, and not just prime picnic space.
Are the project leaders seeing, but not particularly focusing on the greater story of the ecosystem? One needs to remember that Los Angeles rests on what was in fact a wetland and river system. All of which was eventually paved over, even the rivers. Where do rivers run? How will the ocean react? One of the first things that should be planned and assessed is the river enhancement’s effect on the ocean. To name but a few we should be seeing increased sedimentation, perhaps less water, and more organic matter. All of which would be okay (with an adjustment period), but the effects would have to be accounted for very early on in the process.
As it stands the publicized goals of the project are largely social, and mildly natural:
- …create economic development opportunities to enhance and improve River-adjacent communities by providing open space, housing, retail spaces such as restaurants and cafes, educational facilities, and places for other public institutions.
- Improve the environment, enhance water quality, improve water resources, and improve the ecological functioning of the River.
- Provide public access to the River.
- Provide significant recreation space and open space, new trails, and improve natural habitats to support wildlife.
- Preserve and enhance the flood control features of the River.
- Foster a growth in community awareness of the Los Angeles River, and pride in the Los Angeles River.
On restoration background, this is a good story showing that by restoring one element, others will naturally follow suit:
…”Part of the reason the Picayune Strand (Florida Everglades) is succeeding is because its objectives and strategies were sound. The project’s core initiative, to restore water flow, was right on the money. Restoring the flow of water impeded by canals brought back the flora, and now the fauna follows.
Though we have yet to see its real development, the LA River project stinks of visual enhancement. Like filling a lake with a certain species to ‘enhance’ the fishing experience, I fear ‘open green space’, (read: grass) so that people can walk and enjoy the scenery whilst shopping. It does have its charms, but serves a human purpose first. It’s no secret that they’re calling it revitalization, and if it weren’t so community oriented I’d bitch even louder. Oh, the horror!
re Revitalization : What do you think should be most vital to the LA project? Any comments regarding if city planning, in general, is natural systems focused at all?
Aaron said
Aaron
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 correlation.
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.
torbjornrive said
“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”
**You’re hitting the spot Aaron (aww yea). What general populations forget to account for is that even cities are part of nature, there’s just more people crammed in them. As you said, selling off state park land for cashmoney to fund other projects (or pay off debt) is absolutely backwards. Especially when billions are spent devastating environments in the Middle East.
Cheers for the input, hope to hear more from you.
make money online said
make money online…
Very well said. Thanks for your regular updates….