L.A. River: What Would Happen if Concrete is Removed? | Earth Focus | PBS SoCal
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 кві 2024
- An idyllic vision of removing the concrete from 51 miles of the L.A. River is problematic from scientific and social perspectives, according to the engineers and architects tasked with bringing the vision to fruition with Frank Gehry. To restore the river to a more natural state, while still mitigating dangerous flood conditions, would mean displacing millions of people along the way. Jessica M. Henson of OLIN and Mark Hanna of Geosyntech offer a landscape architect and engineer perspective of the river's hydrology.
Learn more at bit.ly/3NNzJ4T
~~~~~~
Subscribe to our UA-cam Channel: bit.ly/3wiFfZ2
Follow us:
Instagram: / pbssocal
TikTok: / pbssocal_kcet
Facebook: / pbssocal
Sign-up for our Newsletter: bit.ly/3wby5Gb
#EarthFocus #LARiver #revitalization #LosAngeles #LosAngelesRiver #Environment #Concrete - Розваги
I remember as a child living near the LA River (Olive Ave renamed Alondra Blvd) when it did have a sand bottom and was full of trees and bushes before it was concreted. I can even remember when the sloped sides were covered in concrete filled gunny-sacks stacked atop one another on a slant before the smooth concrete sides were constructed.
The LA River with the sand bottom was a fun place to play as a kid and was often used by local horse owners for riding. But when that rare immense storm came it caused incredible destruction to both the bottom and sides of that channel, washing tons and tons of sand, rocks, trees, and other debris into the ocean, causing blockage of the storm waters free flow and creating a small dam where it entered the ocean.
I grew up next to the LA River @ Alondra Blvd. I attended Paramount USD schools from 1st until I graduated HS. (1969). I can't count how many times I saw the river full during and after storms.
Upstream at the Devils Gate Damn it’s still pretty lush.
Funny how displacement isnt an issue when we need to add a lane to the freeway.
They state as much. PBS SoCal actually has a longer 2-part series of this topic, and there's a whole chunk where they talk about how freeways and other projects have displaced people and how they are trying to figure out ways to do this without displacing people along the LA river. Whether or not that thinking is kept if this project is ever actually done is another thing altogether, but there's at least some discussion about avoiding that same type of displacement that pushes out usually the people and communities of color. Here's to hoping for a greener LA River that enriches ALL of the communities along it, without displacing them.
Or a bike lane for a North East city where winter is 6 months a year
That’s because being pro nature has principles and ethics, unlike highway commissioners who only prioritize the rich.
@@crayonburry The rich live in cities and take an elevator to work, The poor people cannot afford to live in cities and must commute in, a 3-hour commute on the train is not going to work for a single mother
"So what we decided to do was get rid of the indigenous population who lived with the river and understood its functioning better than anyone else, then we encased the river in concrete straitjackets, then we built infrastructure and housing to the edge of the straitjackets, and now we declare on tv that it's a shame but our hands are tied and we can't change any of this." This absurd attitude is not going to prevail. Dams are being removed across the United States at the rate of about 60 per year. Rivers are being restored and the results are outstanding. The kind of "thinking" expressed in this video is so old-fashioned that it sounds like flat-earth mentality; it represents not scientific or engineering expertise but the vested interests of the current land-owners and real estate developers in LA who don't want any changes that could impact their investment strategies. But it is clear that throwing any river into a concrete straitjacket is unsustainable and shooting your own city in the foot. Before too long wiser people will lead the city to reorganize LA's rivers and lands, and wealthy landowners will be required to cooperate and yes even sacrifice for the sake of saving the city as a whole. The city is not the private possession of the wealthy; it belongs to all the people and to nature, facts that become more clear as indigenous peoples gain strength and influence. This is neither socialism nor capitalism but rather the requirements of nature.
Encasing the river in a concrete tomb and then so many homes and businesses built so close to the river is what creates this huge difficult challenge.
Well they did that so the city wouldn't wash away during pineapple express events or atmospheric rivers. That isn't a new thing to Los Angeles as I'm sure the climate cult would love for you to believe. There was from the start, periods when the whole ocean would dump itself on the city. Completely flooding the low areas, of which there are many. Have you ever been to Los Angeles during one of these atmospheric rivers? It's not pretty
@@trainwreck420ish These people think with their feelings, not their brain.
That's why they encased it in the first place. The erosion was so severe that it destroyed buildings and infrastructure and the flash floods during thaw was a massive danger to the city. The concrete is there for a reason. You can't just remove it on a whim.
@@WolfHeathen And they haven't. There's careful considerations being made.
Displace a few thousand folks or continue to mismanage precious water in a desperately drought stricken state? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Where will they film car chase scenes, then?
I'm sure they'll leave it as concrete by the industrial areas.
As a resident next to another LA concrete river, and an engineer, I'm glad this video didn't horrify me as the title suggested. The title should be "Why we can't remove the concrete from the LA river". The 1864 flood was far worse than 1938.
Concrete doesn't help with floods, It removes natural water catching systems and channelizes the water making it flow faster. Healthy riparian ecosystems in rivers help conserve water during times of drought and protect against floods when water levels are high. Its similar to mangroves protecting against tsunamis. In Indonesia during the 2004 tsunami areas that had healthy mangrove forests where significantly less impacted than areas that didn't. It is worth noting that JUST removing the concrete wouldn't helpful. But removing the concrete would allow for the restoration of these ecosystems. In combination with flood walls this would be a better alternative.
@@matteocastillosensidoni8770 Sorry to bust your ecological ego bubble, BUT mangroves DO NOT protect against tsunamis. What they do is to reduce or even eliminate the erosion caused by the outflow of the water from the wave. They may reduce the amount of damage done by reducing the speed of the incoming wave, but that is probably negligible; especially considering where mangroves develop is not conducive for human development. Now put your thinking cap on and think about your statement about damage impactment.
@@matteocastillosensidoni8770 Did you not watch and listen to the Hydrologist??? First, the river is going to go back to "meandering", meaning it's eventually going to make its own path to flow. What's going to happen when there is a severe flow of water, the surrounding area is going to flood. Second, you can't go back to un-channelizing it unless you displace people. This is what they explained. So, the concrete does help with floods. It creates unimpeded flow. You don't know what you're talking about.
@@matteocastillosensidoni8770 the painful reality is, we don't need the natural ecosystem on one of the largest cities on the planet. Concrete is unmatched on resisting sudden big flows, like the weather of LA does see very rarely. Any groundwater replacement you would get by removing that tiny strip of concrete (compared to the city) is laughable to the consumption, city already consumes mainly rain water anyways.
Keep small green areas for entertainment and lower temperature sure, but trying to mix nature and huge cities too much just ends up hurting both. Cities have to be dense, relatively low distance for transport and economy of scale does wonders for the environment.
The LA River is really a glorious monstrosity!: it's an engineering marvel that works exactly as intended. That it was designed and built in a "modernist" era where controlling nature was far more important than working with it, is unfortunate, but it's sort of "water under the bridge" at this point. (That's not unique. In London the Thames is complete channelized, and historic creeks are now buried under roadways.) Yet, the Sixth Street Viaduct and the Historical Park show you can lean into LA's mid-century aesthetic and still beautify the river.
They are also currently constructing a park underneath the 6th Street viaduct on both sides of the LA River.
controlling nature is a illusion my frd !
river must have a natural bottom and course , thats how we have evolved over millennia.
we want this concrete removed to be able to help water percolate and help recharge groundwater and inturn secure our water availability, also not to mention it cools down neighbourhoods !
John Rogers has done some interesting videos about the lost rivers of London. Rambling in a good way.
Imagine all those River channels were once pristine riparian habitat filled with life
Imagine all the houses & bridges that got washed away and all the people who were drowned by flash floods before the channel was built.
"If it's not impossible, I'm not interested."
I just sprained my orbital muscles rolling my eyes."
That's a river ? Look like a DRAIN !!!!
exactly what it is😮
It actually looked like a river at one time until they concreted everything over and confined the typical runoff to just a channel in the center.
Its the LA culvert pipe of sin
@@Maybe1Someday Poetic.
Rivers are drains, this one saves lives and property. Floods are great, they are what made Egypt prosper, the floods distribute rich soil to the land ,so it can be intense farmed. Bit in a place like LA, the floods wash the people and land away.
I've seen what Fredrick MD and San Antonio have done with channel their creeks and river. They control it without making their waterways looks like complete crap.
Everything that is wrong with LA is illustrated in that River behind them.
The LA “river” was an emergency response to LA hardscape regularly flooding. It is what it has to be.
The LA river was a natural river first. I agree with the rest though.
it's possible diversion retention ponds could be created to syphon off extra flows when the river runs high, but those would have to be made from nearby fields usually used for athletics. That might allow more greening of the channel walls, percolation in the main channel, and more wildlife. But that's a lot of money and work at this point. I would recommend LA encourage porous parking lot asphalt to be used to increase natural percolation where hard parking lots exist now. If there are hundreds of square miles of parking lots, that's a lot more percolation than is occurring currently. it's a start.
@r2dad282 It’s also a start to having all the automobile byproducts entering the water table. Oil, fuels, rubber, coolants, etc.
Perhaps they should have filmed the river immediately after a major rainstorm - just below flood stage. The river, unfortunately, needs to be ready for the .1% of the time when all the hideous looking concrete is actually needed
I lived off los Feliz blvd, there were times the river looked like it would overflow, billions and billions of gallons of water travel at high rates of speed during storms. An awesome powerful sight to see.
It almost overflowed this winter!
@@DirtygardenCA One of the things many people don't seem to understand is that over 90% of LA county is either paved or under a building, thus, virtually all of the rain that falls runs off into the ocean, via the LA river.
Which means they need to figure out a way to capture all that water and refill the aquifers.
@@vernalc2449 That isn't even remotely possible. You would need to be able to capture millions of gallons per second during events that happen far less than 0.01% of the time. LA is essentially a desert region. The LA river is dry 99.9% of the time, except for a small channel in the center that always has watter. I rode my bike to the ocean many times down that riverbed, er, flood control channel.
I am from Johnstown, Pa, ho.e of 3 major floods in 80 years. The concrete river walls prevented more flooding in the later two floods. Johnstown is a valley city. Their river walls work.
Some good information about the technical studies of the LA River. It makes sense when explained why it's built the way it is. Still, I'm confident it will be greener and more user-friendly in the future.
Covering parts of the river to create green and recreational spaces is a great idea that leaves the channel intact to continue to do the job it does so well. Thanks
Leave it to California to try to turn a river into an "equity" issue.
Do the world a favor, educate yourself.
@@tweedledee9573 you first.. what good is one lane if the entire neighborhood gets flooded out..
take your own advice... equity like diversity and inclusion is an excuse for tnot trying harder
ditto
@@mondogecko01it’s hilarious that you actually believe that 😂
Two things I got from this video as well as the comment section: 1) Los Angeles residents think all that bland-looking concrete is absolutely beautiful and 2) restoring the river to its natural state is somehow racist
Producers know that PBS probably doesn't broadcast anything, that doesn't include a wail about "racism" or "climate change", no matter how spurious.
I find the concrete look depressing but I know why it was made that way, historically. I barely think of it as a river because of how it looks. (And I'm a local by the way.)
@@XSemperIdem5 I always thought it was just a drainage canal in all the movies I saw it in until I learned that it was actually a river. When I learned that, I wanted to slap the people who thought this was a good idea
It is beautiful, although not to us, but they realize how it saves them and their city, from the mass destruction of floods.
@@paulbedichek5177 where I live, we have actual rivers and not sewage canals. You’ll have to forgive me for not appreciating this ecological disaster that my fellow Caucasians call “progress”
It's no longer a river. It's a storm drain.
Flash flood drain would be more accurate.
So maybe it's best to leave it alone to do what it was designed to do....keep LA from flooding! I grew up in South Gate...very familiar with both channels!
TL;DW, it prevents flooding and should be left as-is.
Now get rid of some of those freeways.
and return to agricultural production
Think about the poor oil companies 😢😢😢
Yeah those side streets need way more cars.
@@yeomanadventures1549less cars more public transit
@@lawrence-yx1ew less cars, less freeways, more bike-able area, more walkable area, more public transportation. More parks. More gardens.
Learn from Boise, the Boise River green belt goes through almost the entire city and surrounding/connecting metro areas. I used to ride my bike about 20 miles from Eagle to east Boise to work. Exceptionally Beautiful with parks and nature reserved areas all along.
The LA river was never the Boise river not even in 1700.
@@douglasw9624 And while Boise is in a dry region, it's nowhere near as dry or susceptible to seasonal flooding.
Everyone wants to green the river up. Everyone also wants to prevent the loss of homes (and lives) similar to the catastrophe flooding of 1938
I’m glad she mentioned it @ 4:56
This video is 5 minutes of a 20 minute PBS video from Earth Focus called "Re-imaging the LA River" It came about 4/3/24 I suggest everyone here watches it.
Not any kind of engineer (at all) but I bet lateral diversions across the landscape all the way down the "river" would allow for removing concrete as well as recharge water tables.
At the cost of displacing thousands in a state where a starter home is nearly 3/4s of a million dollars
What about a tunnel like San Antonio? I know the answer is probably “too expensive” but it seems like there are more options than either leaving it a concrete channel or bulldozing either side of the river to make it twice as wide?
The flood control concrete exists for a reason. You either need a diversion channel, or the concrete
Should have shown a video clip with the flood in full flow to give true perspective of why it’s there and was built “so functional” and “ aesthetically brutal” and lacking architectural finesse. It is there to serve purpose…. 🤦🏻♂️
we need to figure out how to balance the need for natural spaces with the risk of flooding every 100 years. i think engineers could find a solution to have both.
Yes, what are those solutions to keep and maintain local communities without the effects of gentrification?
Look at McArthur Park Gangs and homeless meth addicts stop gentrification. It's working
In Germany they did something similar with the Emscher-River :).
Have you seen the river when it rains. Let's go backwards and do stupid things because it makes us feel good.
A green LA river isn’t as important as saving the excess water in reservoirs. CA will have wet years & dry years. Dumping all of the rain water into the ocean seems wasteful!
new reservoirs upstream are the answer, but good luck getting that past the local environmental approval process.
How come that isn’t a problem for any other river going through a major city? Chicago? London? New York? All have major rivers in narrow areas that aren’t encased in concrete
Well when heavy rains come. Problems would be more significant
The truth being realized here is that they can direct floods through green belt areas. It doesn’t have to be a concrete canal to do its job.
The concrete is to keep the channel from meandering through someone's neighborhood. Also the roughness of a natural channel would create the need for the channel to be much larger to flow the same amount of water.
In order to create a true green belt they'd need to expropriation thousands of homes and businesses. The extraordinary cost, not to mention the political landmine that would set off will be interesting to watch.
Soo F'ing glad I moved out Calif.
Cover it as a culvert and think of all that extra building land created 🤣
Architects vs. Reality. This is why we need people with a science background involved and idealists need to get real.
I think you'd have to turn the entire river into a tunnel. The river would normally flow on the surface level, but gates would open to the bottom under extreme conditions.
It would be extremely expensive, and I don't know if the water sources are at a high enough elevation.
I want to get involved.
Why tackle the whole thing at once? Remove concrete along a small section and create a park. Do that a few times.
1. People leave to close and would need to be moved.
2. Having a section that is concrete followed by green space means when it rains hard, the flood water will race down the concrete path then floos the greenspace at a slower pace causing more hazardous flooding in the areas directly adjacent to the green space. The entire river is missing a floodplain to handle that.
You probably could piece meal parts of it but you wold be designing the space to account for that rather than make the best space.
Just providing context. No hostility in my comment.
Send for the beaches comes from inland waterways. Removing concrete from the LA river would be a fantastic source of replenishment 👍🏼👍🏼
Pretty cool. Makes sense except for the big rain storm that’ll flood it all. Needs some sort of rock system to slow it down or dam
No. Dude, thats the point of the LA river being concrete and straightened - so the water has no impediments and can flood the area.
Slowing the water requires a bigger channel, if you slow the flow with the same water volume coming down it goes over the bank into someone's house.
4:14 they start actually addressing the title
that was inconclusive and dissapointing - feels like it ended in the middle.
My dad used to say " if it ain't broke, don't fix it ".
Well, at least they can paint the freaking concrete green😊
Really released this just a few months after it's purpose being visibly demonstrated.
The problem is that we think of a river as an object unto itself. But it's really just the most visible part of a watershed. That's a system and you can address just part of it in isolation. To do a proper job you can't just "green" the banks, you'd have to recreate the watershed which not only includes the vegetation but the flood plains and associated wetlands. And it's too late for that in L.A. If you want more green space, you'd be better off just building a deck over the channel with landscaping. Sort of like when we build wildlife crossings over freeways for the animals.
As a European i find it a strange concept to catch a river(!) Especially when the whole state is so arid.
What if diagonal bumps and raised areas were added to catch sediment? Then some small changes could start happening and it still gives the floodwaters a way to escape just in case there’s a huge storm
Small changes in spots could start being a good way to see how the river adapts and how much effort is really needed to rewild the area
I like the problem solving. The issue would be that the catchment would be in the center of a riverbed. There would be fine silt patches at the bottom but they would get washed away every time there is a big rain event. I'm sure some things might be able to grow every now and then but it's still a pile of silt in a almost empty riverbed with no access to soil or groundwater due to the impermeable concrete bottom.
@@Firefenex1996
True true, it’s such a nuanced situation:/
It’s not a perfect solution- but what if the structures were wave shaped 🌊 ( so they have a curve ) maybe that’d help the silt to stay a bit longer or having some larger rocks down there to trap sediment:))
Not sure which method would be best/if either would work- but I’d love to see the scientists experiment a bit more before giving up on the project o7
@@Firefenex1996 - Very astute. When I was a kid the LA river did have a sand/silt bottom (before it was concreted) and it did have trees and scrub brush growing with the requisite wildlife, but as you said, every large storm washed most of it away to damn up at the tidal basin creating a perpetual need to dredge. Hope planners consider that when/if they decide to revert to what was.
Sad part is the people who want to rip out all the concrete and let it run naturally will not listen to common sense when you try to tell them that if you do that it will flood the area around it until it floods the area around it and then they’ll act like why didn’t warn tell us”
How come FL is able to do it with their canal systems?
Canada, represent!
What an opportunity for cantilevered and elevated spaces.
Build green bridges for parks over it.
Key words to take away here are "ground water recharge...." I can't believe they let all that water flow out to the ocean, and they are just now starting to get serious about it.....
We need it for the lava flow
That river looks horrendous
And then the rains come. And then the screaming and drowning begins. And then they say "we made it concrete so it would move the water out of here..."
Hahaha🤣
Anyone from greater LA area are you guys able to use wells rather than the poison water supply they call a river?
Normally I would agree that postponing or even scrapping the idea is the right choice. But CA's drought issue gets worse every year. A lot of that is because of stupid stormwater management controls like the LA river complex which prevent the groundwater to recharge.
Displacing people sucks, but when no one has any water to drink, it might not seem like a bad idea. Are you going to wait till it reaches critical mass?
1:28 "Maybe it was wishful thinking" hmmmm california, imagine that
How many years has LA been talking about this?
When the huge rains like in 82 come- that concrete will keep it from collapsing and pouring into a thousand homes!
Leave it as it is-
It would turn into a huge homeless encampment!
How can Ghery,such a genius, take two years working on removing the concrete ,when in an instant,you can see it is not feasible. Water flows so smoothly (laminar?) on concrete, while on dirt it is extremely chaotic, and has a fraction of the capacity,this in addition to the rapid destruction water causes to the channel it flows through when the flow is increased by two orders of magnitude
Probably because he's not a genious.
And did we come up with any answers?!
Beside demolish the concrete, we should COPY BEAVERS.....build low dam to slow down rivers so letting water recharge the AQUIFER
No thats not how this works my guy.
That won't work.
you do realize everywhere beavers go....they cause floods
Damming a river means you are creating a reservoir (man made lake) behind it.
Hiroshima combined several rivers flowing through the city into one single concrete base river. I don’t know about beautiful, but same as LA, flooding is prevented and no one is blocked by infrastructure from accessing life’s necessities.
Bree doesn't like the look of it so it must change.
Get rid of all those hideous power lines that run along both sides of the LA River. Relocate them to a different transmission corridor that doesn’t go through high density populated areas. Those power lines emit radiation.
Has there even ever been a flood? 🤨
Everyone knows that it NEVER rains in California.
If you want green space AND flood control...build over sections and create parks.
What a horrendous place to live….why? What have you done?
maybe someone should go talk to the dutch (civil engineers)
The river was aways more like a run off creek properly speaking....
If these detached and arrogant people got their wish, there'd be another 1938 flood disaster in a decade or two at most. I've been on the San Gabriel river when the top of the water was skimming the bottom of the overpasses and was a few feet below the bike path. The amount of water than can flow down these concrete rivers is awe-inspiring. The speed of the water is breath-taking. You have to hear it and feel it to intuitively grasp how powerful that water is. Trying to create some man-made, concrete-less "meandering" system would be human folly. The Army Corps of Engineers got it right in the first place.
A cement creek can be returned to its natural state? Please, we aren't that advanced.
fubar fouled up beyond all recognition
You had me until you said the LA river was racist.
If that was vegetated there would be so much garbage in there
Just Leave it to the Beavers 😇
But what about the 21st century?
Just leave it by design for a reason
Floating green spaces? Water goes under and thru.
Well tax money should always be very limited to people that are not paying for this !
When the L A River flood control system was built it was not in minority communities. Once it was away from the downtown, there was not much population in those areas and was probably largely agricultural land.
Mostly not true. Most people didn't live near the river because it would flood on a regular basis. This means that the poorest people are the ones who lived in the flood plain. And minorities were a larger percentage of the poor.
The LA River didn't really have a set path. It would change every time it flooded depending on how much it rained. That's why they channeled it with concrete.
While LA wonders why ground water levels are so low, LA rushes the water into the ocean cuz we don't need it? 😢
Leave it like it is. Sorry, it is an icon, like it or not. Also think about erosion.
California...stop wasting Monday you dont have
Remove the concrete would raise the water table. Anything below the water line is destroyed
Floating plant rafts chained to the bottom.
just paint then concrete green..
Stupid idea that will see whole neighborhoodswashed away
Then John Connor cant get away and the machines will win.
Only the People's Republic of California could try and make a river racist. Infrastructure projects displace poor people, not people of a certain race. Why? Because even with eminent domain, the government still has to buy the land, and land in poor communities is cheaper than trying to build a freeway down Rodeo Drive.
How about they use that money intended for such 'bound to fail' projects, and spend in on what's truly needed, care and aid for the people. I can not believe with all the problems California face today with homelessness, housing, job and industry loss, that anyone would be as blind and brazen to disregard all of that in favor for projects that are solely based in vanity. Sure build your tree filled parks when people can actual ly live and work and support themselves. Not be kicked out their homes because some investors overseas want to buy property high on the dollar.
As soon as someone starts using public funds to help people, the brigades screaming "socialism" will start showing their faces. Those same people most likely travel publicly funded roads and received public education, but that's not the same, I guess.
Don't forget about the Billion+ $USD being wasted on a 'High-Speed' train to SF, a train that most people wouldn't be able to afford to ride or have the need to do so.
@@WarHawk- Problem with HSR is the state of which its proposed. California you need a car to get around plain and simple. so even if you could do 95% of your trip by rail, what about that last 5%?. and its that last 5% that matters most because walking isnt really an option in a place designed for automobile commute. Im not against rail, but the fact is its not a sound solution in at least some of the places it proposed. What truly needed is the ultra budge commute vehicle. We are in a time where greed inflation and cost has made the nation into a third world country. and i seriously mean that. look at soooo many states and take a not so deep dive and youl be shocked at what you see. all this due to government favoring the rich, and continually thinking that a tickle down effect will be enough for the masses. such things never work.
I’ll save you 5 minutes of your life - they’re not going to do anything.
Yeah all talk.