Is Cleaning the River, Cleaning the Local Neighborhoods?
I have been going down to the Los Angeles River since I was eight. In the beginning, I would only go down to the river to learn to ride my bike and check out the height of the water after a night of rain. In seventh grade, I would occasionally go down to the river to pick up trash by myself and continued to do so for the next two years. I eventually joined an organization named FOLAR (Friends of the Los Angeles River) who hold three clean ups a year, however every clean up there are always protests. Usually locals protest the clean ups because they are afraid that cleaning of the L.A River will lead to the complete reinvention of frogtown and the surrounding neighborhoods just like the clean up of the highline in New York City led to the meat packing district to sprout in a matter of months. Today the river looked cleaner than I had ever seen it since 2009 when I first laid my eyes on its murky green currents, which is great but it is clear that not just the river is changing.
Walking further south down the river our group noticed a brand new apartment complex and bike/coffee shops surrounded by run down houses. From what we saw today, do the protesters make a valid point? Do you believe that the cleansing of the river will lead to further gentrification of the area? Many non-locals (in respect to frogtown) believe the river is still a sewage dump that is a solely meant for waste. The river is home to over 200 species of birds and vegetation and in order to keep L.A's "jungle" healthy we must continue to clean it up. What's more important? Gaining the respect of the river from all of Los Angeles (disregarding where one lives) leading to the city finally investing in it and also leading to the inevitable gentrification of the neighborhood. Or continuing to ignore the river leading to its demise while letting the surrounding community continue to thrive in the glassell park and frogtown neighborhoods. Can the two coexist? If so, how? Also I would like to acknowledge how confusing that question is considering its wording. Let me try to rephrase. In short, the cleansing of the river will lead to more attention from more angelenos almost certainly leading to the gentrification of the area, but also making the river a gorgeous, natural oasis in a materialistic city. Which option is more important in the grand scheme of our city? Also, have we seen a similar situation happen to a neighborhood in LA in any of our previous texts/urban labs?
Walking further south down the river our group noticed a brand new apartment complex and bike/coffee shops surrounded by run down houses. From what we saw today, do the protesters make a valid point? Do you believe that the cleansing of the river will lead to further gentrification of the area? Many non-locals (in respect to frogtown) believe the river is still a sewage dump that is a solely meant for waste. The river is home to over 200 species of birds and vegetation and in order to keep L.A's "jungle" healthy we must continue to clean it up. What's more important? Gaining the respect of the river from all of Los Angeles (disregarding where one lives) leading to the city finally investing in it and also leading to the inevitable gentrification of the neighborhood. Or continuing to ignore the river leading to its demise while letting the surrounding community continue to thrive in the glassell park and frogtown neighborhoods. Can the two coexist? If so, how? Also I would like to acknowledge how confusing that question is considering its wording. Let me try to rephrase. In short, the cleansing of the river will lead to more attention from more angelenos almost certainly leading to the gentrification of the area, but also making the river a gorgeous, natural oasis in a materialistic city. Which option is more important in the grand scheme of our city? Also, have we seen a similar situation happen to a neighborhood in LA in any of our previous texts/urban labs?
Having been involved with FOLAR as well, I remember seeing protesters one year at the river clean up. Thinking about it now, I do see where they are coming from in their fight against gentrification and development of the surrounding area. Especially when considering the new apartment complex and coffee shops, these protesters are seeing physical results, not just hypothetical developments. Still, I think these protesters might be taking out their anger and disappointment towards gentrification in the wrong space and placing the blame on the wrong issue. While I can respect their opinions on the topic, I don't believe it is cleaning up the river that will lead to further gentrification. This said, I think something needs to be done as far as educating not just locals, but non-locals as well on the importance of the LA River. As you mentioned, many non-locals view the river as a sewage dump meant for waste. In order for things to change, I think we need to address the root of the issue, which lies in the way the LA river is portrayed. Even though I have volunteered with the river clean up and had some background info on the LA river, I didn't know half the things I did before reading the chapter about it in "Land of Sunshine". The presence of the river and views towards the it are drastically different now than they were years ago when Los Angeles was under development. As said by Blake Gumprecht in chapter 6 of "Land of Sunshine", "Most often the river is broad swath of dry pavement that looks like nothing so much as a deserted freeway". This is the view many people (especially non-locals) have towards the river, since its importance is not talked about as much as it should be. It is more than what it seems to be on the outside, and this is because of the waste dumping that has already taken place. You also mentioned that the river is home to a large number of bird species and vegetation. Again, this is not something that many people may know about and could be something that changes their attitude towards river maintenance. I believe that with the knowledge of what the river means to Los Angeles, citizens can separate the importance of keeping the river clean and gentrification of the surrounding area. Yes, gentrification is taking place in various Los Angeles neighborhoods but I see keeping the river clean as something unrelated for the most part. It is important to acknowledge the development that is currently taking place in the area surrounding the river, but also not be so quick to blame it on the river itself.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that a river should not be cleaned up because of the potential for urban development is absurd and dangerous. Two points. First, that logic justifies the worst forms of environmental destruction wherein investment is withheld from ecological preservation at the risk that the economy and culture of those who lived within a close vicinity to the area will be wrecked. For example strip miners in Virginia, poachers in Africa, and oil drillers in Nigeria all have communities which thrive as a direct result of the conditions brought forth by their surroundings. The idea that an ethic of care towards those environments should not exist because of displacement risks blindly destroying environments rich in biodiversity that preceded whatever human culture was created around its degradation. Of course, the people who surround the river are not directly exploiting it. But, my point still stands: continuing degradation of the environment because people are scared of the change that will come is dangerous. Secondly, it is not the fault of the cleanup that prices increase. A sad facet of capitalism is that market value for rich folks exists more often than not in places that less polluted. That is not the fault of being those being ecologically mindful, but our current economic system. We as a species need to stop messing up the environment if we hope to sustain the planet for generations to come. Do not blame preservation for gentrification, blame capitalism.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is a possibility that the two can co-exist. While the cleaning of the river does make the area surrounding it seem like a more appealing place to buy apartments, there are ways to prevent gentrification while also not completely destroying a great landmark to Los Angeles and one of the reasons that LA is the thriving metropolis it is today. I believe there will never reach a time that the LA river will be clean enough that it reaches the point that real estate will be a huge development there. With every clean up held, there will be hundreds of people throwing their trash down to the river. Then there will be another clean up after a few months, but after that cleanup there will be yet again more trash being thrown down to the river. The process will never halt, thus there will never be an appeal for more housing there other than for the week that the river is cleaned after the cleanup. If there were such a way to clean the river for such a period of time that there is more appeal towards housing by the river then I believe the positives of river's cleanliness would outweigh the negatives. Gentrification is happening all over the city, many towns are being displaced for new ones to thrive again, whereas there is only one LA river and will only ever be one LA river, so the conservation of it is crucial. While I was walking along the river I noticed that there were a lot of mechanic buildings that didn't need the real estate right next to the river. What difference does it make if something is welded in the middle of nowhere versus by the LA river. While I don't believe the LA river will ever reach a period of cleanliness for it to be a desirable area to live by for many, if there was a way to keep it clean the pros of preserving the river would outweigh the cons by a good margin.
ReplyDeleteLike dominoes, we fall, blindly walking the march of late stage capitalism and singing the tune of development. In the process of development and progress, some people will inevitably be left behind. That's sad, but nonetheless progress and continued expansion drives our model of economic consumption. Halting the grind of industrial capitalism is both futile and dangerous because without continued production of surplus value, the economy plunges which causes even worse impacts(poverty, wage loss, inflation etc.) Posing the question of whether or not we should halt development out of an empathetic reaction to certain individuals in a community being outpriced from their homes seems like forced intervention on the natural progress of development based out of an empathetic and emotional response to people's situations. Developing the river is functionally inevitable as rising real estate prices and overpopulation push people to invest in real estate further away from main hubs and create new flourishing areas for commerce.
ReplyDeleteThe optimist in me wants to say that we can clean the river, protect communities, and develop neighborhoods in peace and harmony but that is not the reality. Observing different towns throughout LA, I have noticed that as soon as you start cleaning or "fixing up" a place that leads to development or gentrification. It is almost inevitable. Though I do find hope in cleaning the LA River. The river itself is not located in simply one community. For all we know, the new shops and apartment complexes could have been developed without regarding the river at all. By cleaning the river, I believe that we are opening it up to more people to view it as a beautiful part of LA rather than a dumping ground. With that being said, my group passed by a section of the river in which someone had made a home. A homeless person had utilized a section of the river to put their belongings and I felt as if we were intruding by looking into it. Cleaning up the river would displace all of the homeless people that have built their homes in the nooks and crannies of the cement paths. I am not sure what my opinion is on the cleaning of the river but I think that if we were to clean it or not to that the river will still hold a historical significance to the city.
ReplyDeleteThis question can be used to examine gentrification on a general level. We have been discussing how the improvement of neighborhoods has baggage because it usually knocks out the people living there originally. If neighborhoods are run down, dangerous, struggling.. does improvement / reshaping the neighborhood have any benefit to the people of that community? I am careful to say "reshaping neighborhood" and not "reshaping community," because I personally believe the two are different. If done consciously, reshaping a neighborhood could strengthen and sustain and coexisting community. Today at the river, our group was seeking to build something that would be applicable every person in the community. This mindset is an outlook that if adopted by developers or the new flow of people, could lead to improved, safer neighborhoods and invigorated communities. As the population grows and people keep spreading out, gentrification is somewhat inevitable. Leaving the environment in shambles isn't healthy or safe for the surrounding people. Neither of these issues outweighs the other because they are interwind with one another and both impact the surrounding community. I believe that if people approached the improvement of neighborhoods with an environmental interest and an appreciation for the standing community, changes that occur would be healthy and beneficial and not an exclusive invasion.
ReplyDeleteI would like to believe that no matter what we do, people will move to this location. All it takes is for a couple of spots to pop up which they have (bicycle cafe) (new apparent/workspace) and once the location becomes "trendy" then there is nothing that you can do in order to stop new places trying to move in. Because of this, I think that cleaning up the river would do nothing but good. New places will move into locations on the river no matter what happens, so the best that we can do is try to help clean up the river and make it better. We have witnessed behavior such like this in terms of people moving to live in the Hollywood hills in our Banham reading that was assigned to us. To speak on which is more important I also believe that it is more important to clean the river, however I do not think that it is possible to stop the gentrification process from happening.
ReplyDeleteI do think that the protestors make a value point—these clean-ups definitely influence the appearance of the Los Angeles River, and making it a cleaner, more attractive place to live will inevitably increase the area’s appeal. While they recognize the validity of this process, the protestors fail to understand that the community changes that would come with gentrification and popularization of the area would have happened with time anyway, as investors are constantly searching for new areas to urbanize and make profitable: at least this way, the river will gain attention and the city will have to stop neglecting it (as they have done for decades—instead, the city will begin to protect all the incredible vegetation and unique animal species housed by the river. We will never be able to restore the L.A. river to its former glory, but cleaning it up is a start to recognizing what we have destroyed and wrongfully ignored for so many years. Around 1910, more than a century ago, a member of the Los Angeles Board of Park Commissioners commented that “it would be expensive and difficult, if not impossible, ever to make the river bed a thing of beauty, but it is not necessary to have it so ugly and unsanitary” (Land of Sunshine, Who Killed the Los Angeles River, pg. 129). While I agree that it would be expensive AND difficult to completely alter the whole river’s image, I do think it is possible. I think there are also plenty of wealthy investors out there who would be willing to spend their money beautifying a region of the river and building developments along its banks—especially once they realized its financial potential. I think creating a “gorgeous, natural oasis” in this largely materialistic city would benefit both the natural world in L.A. and could inspire a greater appreciation for nature in Angelinos. We already witnessed this process beginning along the river—the trendy bike shop and coffee/bar café are only the start of a change that will gradually take over much of Frogtown.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is that we should make an effort to clean the river. As stated in the question, the Los Angeles River is home to over 200 species of birds and vegetation. How can we, as citizens of the city, justify the continuation of destroying their home? I think it would be questionable to oversee the destruction of the River, a home to numerous species of animals and plants, in hopes of preventing theoretical gentrification of the area. While the Los Angeles River may be well known, I have never had any actual experiences with it, mainly because it is horribly polluted. Honestly, I think that is kind of sad. I have lived in Los Angeles my entire life, and have never done anything involving the River because of its horrid pollution. Sure, increasing the quality of the River would draw more people towards it, increasing the value of the area. The essential question is whether that increase in value of the area is worth having a functioning River, and my opinion is that I do not think it is right to continue polluting the river in order to stop gentrification of the area.
ReplyDeleteThe question presented in this prompt is something I have been thinking about a lot lately. I think it is a question that is tied directly with some of our class discussions surrounding gentrification. The question of whether going in and “improving” areas while inadvertently affecting the people there, is something I have had trouble navigating. In situations like gentrification of neighborhoods like highland park it is much easier to see the wrongs, but in areas like the L.A river by cleaning it you are directly improving the life of birds and vegetation surrounding the river. However, the reality is that by cleaning the river we are improving the aesthetic of the river and that will attract a larger population. I wonder if we can work on improving the area, but ensure that the people enjoying the improvements of the river will not primarily be the people who have moved to this area through the process of gentrification. I think we need to prioritize that the people living in these areas are not negatively affected throughout the process of improving the river.
ReplyDeleteI personally feel like it is more important to respect the river, because even though the river is mainly man made, it is still nature and why should we allow ourselves to sit back and watch the river get polluted because locals believe that it will result in a reinvention of Frogtown? I, however, don’t think both respecting the river, and people not wanting gentrification can coexist; considering the fact that cleaning the river would make it more appealing which would add more people, therefore adding more gentrifiers.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure that the two options you gave us are the only ones available. First of all, I’m not sure that cleaning up the river would gain the respect of all of Los Angeles. How important is Atwater Village to Los Angeles as a whole? Does cleaning up the river in that one place mean cleaning up the river in other places? Secondly, I’m not sure that cleaning up the river has to mean gentrification. I wonder what came first in Frogtown: development of property or cleaning up the river. Maybe the two came hand-in-hand. But maybe the two can also be separated. Can the surrounding community thrive when the river does too? My instinct would be to ask those protesters. I think that the needs of the local community come before “beautification” and aesthetic.
ReplyDeleteI saw that the river and surrounding park seemed to open up an area that might have once been enclosed by freeways and trash. I personally value the natural space that surrounds my home—the tunnel that trees on my street form, the Rose Bowl, the Arroyo. I can take my dog on a walk out in the fresh air. But I’m not sure if that’s what everyone values. What benefit could cleaning up the river have for those who have lived in Frogtown for several years? Are there other needs of those community members that should be met first?
I think that the two options can co-exist. I do not think that cleaning the LA river would completely “promote” the idea of gentrification and reinventing this area of Los Angeles. Instead, I think that the cleansing of the LA river would contribute to the sense of nature and beauty in our mostly materialistic city. I think that cleaning the LA river would rather promote an appreciation for this natural oasis and raise awareness regarding the abuse that angelenos put it through. I think that positive attention will be drawn to the river in an attempt to restore its natural beauty not necessarily leading to gentrification.
ReplyDelete