Reimagining the Los Angeles River | Earth Focus | Season 5, Episode 1 | PBS SoCal 

A new bike path isn’t habitat restoration.

But it would let PEOPLE use less polluting vehicles to go where they want/need to go. Plus they get better health using their muscles and staying healthier too.

It was our "bike path" to the beach in the 60s and 70s lol although it was illegal... we did it anyway and never got into trouble.

Very true. Balancing flood control with river/habitat restoration is near impossible as they have such divergent goals.

I appreciate your articulation and sharing; so well written.

tldr😂

Yeah i was so hopeful at the beginning of this doc and then so depressed by the ending….maybe it is just a lesson to learn from

And that's nothing compared to what Robert Moses did with the Cross Bronx Express

What is your solution? Keep it ugly for the sake of the underprivileged? Did you even watch the video?

LA gentrified everywhere ages ago, if you want to preserve low-income neighbourhoods you need to upzone the entire city evenly across all areas

I get your point but it'd hard to imagine anyone poor being able to afford that area these days, even if the High Line never existed

@@brettpitman3718Thank you. People are so quick to complain about gentrification and I get it but those same people should also be advocating for more housing if they really want solutions. Developers will never stop, and there is a housing crisis

You won't see a true river for a good part of LA river ever unless 999999999999% of the world is destroyed.

@@DaniMrtini Well at lest they are trying something. Better than enviro doomerism any day.

@raclark2730 sure I know that bit what many folks hope for isn't going to be the reality.

@@DaniMrtini We shall see I suppose. Sure we probably cant turn the planet back to pristine. But there could be chance to meet in the middle.

The maximalist plan is probably pie in the sky and you and I would be ling gone before it got done lol. But something like the Platte River in CO may work

Great, but where is the “restored habitat” when it leads to concrete tunnels and ponds on concrete and more buildings? Makes no sense.

That’s exactly what I was thinking from the very beginning of this video. The river was built for 100 year events. It’s only been 90 somewhat years since the last event and we’re already trying to tear it down because the event hasn’t happened.

Hence the reason why they may have to dredge both the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers to 2.5-3 times the historical natural depth to make sure the river does not become an overflow hazard.

Well ya, im pretty sure they talked about why the l.a river was built the way it is, but how they went around it was short sighted imo. basically destroyed a river and filled it with concrete, and well now we can't get rid of the concrete because people live near the river which is also another mistake again imo. New plan seems to just make the river more recreational.

@@GuthanSlayer To bring the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers back to a reasonably natural state would mean dredging the rivers to 2.5-3 times its original depth to make it less prone to overflowing and putting in levees on both sides, which is not completely practical because the levee installation would end up destroying a large number of homes near the river. We're pretty much stuck with the concrete lining, unfortunately.

The addition of impermeable surfaces is what makes floods worse. The channelization of the river treated a symptom but didn't fix the root of the problem, which is that water has nowhere to go and thus causes floods. The solution to this will be multi faceted, and the restoration of the river is a necessary but insufficient part.

Can't stop it, happening everywhere

I mean it's a public river that literally is just concrete. It would be better to change it back to a river that both channels flood water and absorb water back into the quickly draining groundwater reservoirs. It also helps support greenery that will better support both wildlife and the overall LA health.

​@@goldenoodles6281 its not so easy, the main cause is something this video didnt explain properly and that is that the watershed of the LA River's 824square miles is mostly made out of concrete and asphalt. The whole LA is so paved over the rainwater has nowhere to go but to the LA River or the other drainage canals zigzagging the city when it rains. The absolute lack of small and large parks that could halp with water retention, infiltration and evaporation close to LA River doesnt help its cause at all. The San Gabriel River was much better managed at least till the Firestone Blvd, but it shows just how much redevelopment would be needed if they wanted to have LA river without concerete. So the current state, and the conservative aproach of some officials and experts is not the casue but the symptom of much larger problem.

How’s the NYC oyster bay project going? (Look it up)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Might as well pick the option that makes things look nice.

well then you would have loved it in the 60s and 70s when I frequented the L.A. Riverbed.

The river is even more beautiful in the Valley where they didn't concrete it at all

We don't need single-story suburbs, we need a proper city with multistory apartment buildings and robust public transportation.

​@@TinLeadHammerTrue, but we need green spaces a lot, too especially in many neighborhoods along the river.

We need both. Much more housing and green spaces for recreation.

Let’s hope this guy doesn’t move in after the project is finished

Yeah, the wildlife of the restored habitat love that…

BS

@@juststeve7665 lol

Live next to the LA river, that exists to some degree. Problem is one storm will rip it all out and send it down into the Port of LA/LB.

@@M.Mae.M facts.

i couldn't watch after a while. "commmuuunitttieeeees"

Hmm and it was sponsored by a scam organization with the same name what a coincidence.

Bunch of NIMBYs who complain about "gentrification".

so WHAT ?

How about restored habitat? Zero.

My thoughts the whole time

Architects dream at the expense of habitat.

They've been talking about the LA River since I lived there in 1994. Still haven't seen anything done.

No no. Metro in its wisdom prefers to put lines through quiet neighborhoods

"800 miles"? not the L.A. river....

Their mics are made for helicopters and have built in phase cancellation that gets rid of the helicopter noise. but if you listen closely, you can hear it does make their voices sound a little tinny, similar to how a voice sounds on the telephone

They have already done that, that is what the Sepulveda Flood Basin is. Over 2,000 acres of land that was built in order to flood in the event of torrential downpours. And when they do get their once decade storms, it can flood up to 10 feet or more and take a month or more to drain again. And there is nowhere they can build another basin. The San Fernando Valley is small and narrow, but very flat. There are no real "flash floods" there, but there can be a huge amount of water in heavy rains as the ground does not soak up water well so it just runs off. And because of the geology, it can only flow in one direction. You can not tell by that video, but Canoga Park where the river starts to the Sepulveda Flood Control Basin is less than 10 miles. All of the water from that valley goes there, because it is the lowest part in the valley. I grew up in that area, and used to play in the river as a kid. The channel from Canoga Park to Sepulveda is about 20 meters deep and over 100 meters wide (often up to 250 meters). And just 10 miles from the start of the river, it can get water up to 3/4 of the way up the sides of that channel in a storm. The amount of water that flows down that during heavy storms is almost impossible to imagine, and it picks it up in a very small amount of space. They simply can't build any more basins like that. And they can't retain the water, as that would cause vector issues as well as the water cached in them is generally toxic and can be used for nothing. Once you go down from the San Gabriel Mountains, it is largely fed by street runoff. That means oil, spilled gasoline, human waste from the homeless encampments, and everything else from the streets in LA goes into the river. Everybody that lives there knows to not swim in or eat the fish from the river. But as for the flood problems, it is only a problem during the El Niño storms, roughly one year every 7-10 years. In all of the other years, the channels are more than enough to handle everything and more. But the overengineering was done for what we call the "Decade Storms", in other words ones they get once a decade. Like the one mentioned at the start in 1938. When that area was still a sparsely populated rural community with a population of less than 100,000 people yet killed over 100 people. Today, that area is home to over 1.8 million people. And if you look, there are photographs in 1938 of city streets with the water running down it at waist level. If that was to happen today, the death count would be in the thousands if not for the channeling of the LA River.

Where you gonna get that magical land from in densely populated LA?

@@zeitgeistx5239Turn every 2 story house into a 10 story apartment building 😀 LA isn't densely populated. The density per square mile in Los Angeles (2018) was only 7,545 persons per square mile (within its 503 square mile boundary); But New York City (2018) had 26,403 persons per square mile! (within its 303 square miles). San Francisco is 18,790 people per square mile. So LA has a long way to go before you can call it "Densely Populated."

Thanks Bill Nye! 😂

Along the San Gabriel river too.

there were stables along the river back in the 1960s, 70,s and 80s that boarded and rented horses... I have a picture of myself and my Mom riding there from 1960... we rode there many times. I live far from there now... I wonder if any of those stables still exist.

I like its focus on making the river more conducive to recreational activities.

Yes. Also with the movie Grease

Nope. Flooding will erode and undermine the banks. You “thinking” it can be done has nothing to do with reality.

1 liter of water weights 1kg. or a volume 0,001 cubic metres. one basketball has a volume of about 0.011 cubic meters. so 1 basketball of water would weight around 10kg

@@lazyboy300 I'm guessing you pulled the 0.011 number from The Measure of Things. But they corrected it; search for "Correction for the size of a Basketball (packed)". I'll do the math directly to confirm. A size 7 ball is at most 0.77 meters circumference (it can be as low as 0.75 m). That yields a radius of 0.122549 m and a volume of 0.00770941 cubic m.

Guess where it's all heading: new feudalism

Gehry doesn't come from money. And his firm is doing this work for free.

Capping the river is a great compromised solution. It would creat needed green spaces and be more recreationally friendly. It will work.

@mrxman581 This is not a situation that calls for the middle ground. The very future of the livability of the region hinges on accepting that we need to begin to invest in drastic societal changes. The status quo is simply not enough to sustain this region through the challenging climate future that is not as far off as some more short-sighted thinkers imagine.

Agreed

Felt the same

This isn’t rewilding anymore it’s park creation and who loses? Biodiversity and the environment.

Yea, as i was watching i was like what the hell? Half way through they just said, well it would actually be really hard, so were not gonna do it, but look at all these local people talk about their lives

The more beautiful a place gets the more people want to move there… I can displacement happening in that way. But it’s overblown here. As always they find excuses to not do it instead of simply doing it

It's a moot point. The natural state of this seasonal river could be very unpredictable. That's one of the reasons they channeled it. If you werw to take it back to its original natural state, the flood plane zone on both banks of the river would need to be around 1/4 mile on each side with new berms on both sides of the 51 mile length. Never going to happen. That discussion is moot at this point.

It's a moot point. The natural state of this seasonal river could be very unpredictable. That's one of the reasons they channeled it. If you werw to take it back to its original natural state, the flood plane zone on both banks of the river would need to be around 1/4 mile on each side with new berms on both sides of the 51 mile length. Never going to happen. That discussion is moot at this point.

You don't know LA.

and way over budget

This was specifically about the areas around the LA River. And you had various people of color interviewed on this video. There are many redevelopment plans going on for historically minority communities too. Do some homework and volunteer to have a say in your community. It's up to you to help make a difference as the black woman implied in the video

You're just furthering and "us versus them" mentality. I don't think that does anybody any good.

@@user-ke9yk5qp3uperpetuation of racism. You nailed exactly why it’ll never cease.

Do you think the people involved in this project don't have knowledge and examples of how this project will work? By the way, greenery always create greater interest.

It's already happening around the DTLA area near the river. Several new residential buildings have been built. And they're not low income.

Have you seen the Arts District?

So true, gentrified neighborhoods are so bland and boring

No no no I've lived in poor neighborhoods in LA and they do not have "charm"

they have crime that is lost with gentrification too

No. It's a seasonal river.

you say this like the United States itself was not founded on slavery and genocide. race is still VERY real in the country and if you can't see that, you're either in denial or extremely privileged.

I guess you only studied the white American version of US history. The fact that up through the 60s blacks and other minorities couldn't buy homes in many of the better neighborhoods in LA is directly related to why more minority neighborhoods exist along the river. It was some of the few areas minorities could buy land or a home.

Calm down, Karen/Chad. No one is talking about tearing up the concrete channel and letting the L.A. River run willy-nilly through the city. Even if they were, big business corporations would never let it happen.

You are certainly free to complain and expect the worst, but what if you daringly thought bigger and acknowledged that we have major social problems which can be fixed? What do you have against taking actions towards more affordable housing, having a livable wage, and effective addiction treatment programs? What if you voted for a better world instead of appeasing rich people who insist that they don't want to pay any taxes?

@@scottg.g.haller3291 The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

@@americanpaisareturns9051 Yeah you are definitely insane if you think not providing amenities and social services to homeless people will magically solve homelessness.

@@blazesardonyx7557 somehow the problem gets worse as the budgets get bigger. Problems that can be perpetually funded are addressed instead of root causes. People in the industry have no incentive to work themselves out of a job by ending homelessness.

AHHAHAH🤣🤣🤣

But when it does flow, the pre 1930's Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers were major flood hazards. I wonder was there consideration back in the 1930's to dredge the river to 2.5-3 times its natural depth and installing levees to reduce the flooding hazard.

@@Sacto1654 Go read the history of Mulholland and how and why he did it. If you're asking that, though, you can still look at some of the riverbeds we still do have that have not been turned into the concrete ditches supported by dams, for example Santa Clara River in Ventura/Oxnard area. That is how the LA basin would have looked all over the areas with the same type of "rivers" that would be dry most of the year, with only a trickle here and there. And when you look at a river like that, especially during the heavy rain season, you can tell how far and wide the water actually stretches and spread, rather than stay on track in the same lane as it were, because the rushing water comes so fast down the hills and slopes, it just flows everywhere so wide, taking out whatever is in the way, is why they had to build things like what the LA River is today, to DIRECT the water more efficiently in a uniform pattern, so as to prevent it from destroying whatever it would in a wider flow, as it used to do, destroying homes and crops. All of which history you can read about, or watch documentaries on, why they had to build these ditches and dams everywhere.

@@Sacto1654 You can read all about Mulholland and the LA River and how they had to do this to save the towns, after the first few disasters of homes and crops being washed away, which is how they learned what can happen, which led to the construction of the ditches and flood control dams

@@ScrewyDriverTheMan But wasn't the floods in the 1930's after Mulholland was fired from the Los Angeles Bureau of Water Works and Supply after the unfortunate St. Francis Dam collapse in 1928?

@@Sacto1654 Like I said, you're welcome to read all about it on the web, the whole history of LA river and the LA basin

Lisa please remember that the “Americans” that conquered this land and pushed the native/indigenous peoples south didn’t immigrate legally either. Why did the indigenous peoples have to loose their land, and their lives, so that europeans could build a capitalist dystopia for the benefit of nobody other than themselves? Also the plans for the river would not only affect latin/hispanic immigrants but the black, asian, and white immigrants (as well as the descendants of colonizers) that inhabit in the area as well.

@IsaiahTheQueen I agree that the indigenous people were largely ripped off, but not all. I know many indigenous people and some intentionally married into those same families of European ranchers. The missionaries did not own the land and most of it was transferred to the indigenous people but then most were largely ripped off and coerced to sell to settlers who came to California from the East or Europe or the Californios. The huge problem we have now is a lack of space, a lack of affordable housing across the board in California for ALL people except the very rich. Immigration from Mexico with this open border is making it much worse. People should not continue to come here and many people should relocate to states where there is more land and use their ingenuity and work ethic to create good communities in those places. I lived in downtown LA for 4 years and it's not a good place for anyone to live I moved out of LA after 20 years. This plan to "green" the LA River and spend millions or billions on this project is so out of touch with reality. It's a real estate developer's $Dream$ and nothing more and the people who are at a disadvantage are being used to promote this insane project. There have to be places for poor people to live but nobody should spend their life in an urban center. They should move away for a better life or stay in Mexico, which is not a communist country and where there is opportunity and natural beauty. I am 100% against this LA River greening project because I see that it is a real estate boondoggle with taxpayer's funds, at a time when so many Californians are daily flirting with economic disaster, no matter who they are because the rent is too damn high for everyone.