river talk: building trust among la river community stakeholders through a collaborative...

8/16/2019 River Talk: Building Trust Among LA River Community Stakeholders Through a Collaborative Revitalization Dialogue

1/45

River Talk Building Trust Among LA River Community Stakeholders Through a Collaborative Revitalization Dialogue

Andrew Stricklin


2/45

Cover images (from top): 1. Tyrone Hart has lived in the LA River channel ne ar Griffith Park for

12 years. Source: LA Weekly/Photo: Erik Skindrud, 2015. 2. Cat faces used to adorn storm drain

covers in the LA River channel just north of the Fletcher Bridge. Photo: Diane Edwardson, 2011.

Edited by Andrew Stricklin. 3. Los Angeles River bike path through the West San Fernando

Valley. Source: Streetsblog L.A ./Photo: Joe Linton, 2014. 4. Kayaking in the Sepulveda Basin.

Photo: Andrew Stricklin, 2015.


3/45

University of CaliforniaLos Angeles

River Talk Building Trust Among LA River Community Stakeholders

Through a Collaborative Revitalization Dialogue

A comprehensive project submitted in partialsatisfaction of the requirements for the degree

Master of Urban and Regional Planning

By Andrew Stricklin

Client: LARiverWorks, Office of Mayor Eric Garcetti, City of Los AngelesFaculty Chair: Dr. Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris

June 2016


4/45

2

Disclaimer: Tis report was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master in Urbanand Regional Planning degree in the Department of Urban Planning at the University of California, Los

Angeles. It was prepared at the direction of the Department and of LARiverWorks in the Office of MayorEric Garcetti as a planning client. Te views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily

those of the Department, the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, UCLA as a whole, or the client.


5/45

3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sincere gratitude to all my Riversisters and Riverbrothers who helped make River Talk

come to life, especially:

Dr. Carol Armstrong, for your encyclopedic knowledge of the Los Angeles River and your

unwavering commitment to its revitalization for generations of Angelenos to come.

Dr. Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, for inspiring me to become a passionate advocate of

inclusive public spaces that make our cities better.

Michael Affeldt, Marcelino Ascensio, Amalia Merino, Christopher Piña, and MelissaGuerrero, for being the hardest working and most fun-loving Riverfamily an urban

planner could ask for.

Community Stakeholder Interviewees, for your time and invaluable insight, and for the

commitment to your communities you demonstrate daily .

The David Bohnett Foundation, for its generous support of my UCLA urban planning

education.

Dr. Gloria Rodriguez Bañuelos, Dr. Laurie Gries, and Rachel Cox Gallardo, for supportingme in my pursuit of a graduate education.

Bill and DeLaine Stricklin, for your unending love and support, even thousands of miles

away.

Sabin Ciocan, for your love, patience, and support, and for the countless hours you spent

listening to me talk about River Talk .


6/45

The Unfinished (Michael Parker, 2014) is an obelisk-shaped excavation located along the banks of the channelized LA River

at the Bowtie Project. It is a 137-foot replica of the Ancient Egyptian archaeological site known as “The Unfinished Obelisk.”

Source: Clockshop. Photo: Alexis Chanes.


7/45

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The aim of River Talk is to identify how agencies governing the Los Angeles River can

build social capital and public trust for its revitalization. This document first examines

a brief history of the River and establishes how public trust is diminishing. Then, it

communicates the results of a qualitative, phenomenological research study that was

conducted to understand the perceptions and participation of LA River community

stakeholders, including neighborhood council board members, business owners, artists,

homeless services organization representatives, and other community organization

representatives. The study, which ran from October 2015 to April 2016, included thirty

community stakeholder interviews, six site observations, and three document analyses.

From this research, there are four significant findings:

1. Neighborhood councils and community organizations value the River

revitalization as an opportunity for increased public access and open space, but

participation is largely determined by the type of access that groups have to the

river and the communication they receive about it.

2. Artists value their personal connection to the River and its history, but they

express concern that the River is becoming an exclusive place.

3. Representatives from homeless services agencies and organizations explain

that people experiencing homelessness may choose to live at the River because

it is less restrictive, more secure and has a stronger sense of community thanother alternatives; these representatives also describe the need for dedicated

outreach teams at the River.

4. Stakeholders with interests in the Glendale Narrows stretch of the River express

concerns about development, transparency, and governance.

These findings were analyzed in the contex t of urban planning, urban design, and public

policy literature on engaging stakeholders. This analysis resulted in recommendations


8/45

6

that are intended to initiate a collaborative River revitalization dialogue. These five

recommendations include:

1. River governing agencies should develop communications strategies that are

clear and accessible to community stakeholders.

2. Neighborhood groups and River governing agencies should work together to

produce events that include safe, informal access to the River.

3. Local artists and River governing agencies should work together to create events

that require the re-examination of rules regulating art at the River.

4. Homeless services agencies and River governing agencies should partner to

establish outreach teams that connect people with permanent housing options.

5. River governing agencies should conduct ongoing, face-to-face outreach with

stakeholders along the Glendale Narrows.


9/45

7

CONTENTS

Introduction 9 From channelization to revitalization

An emerging gap in public trust

Literature Review 15 Perspectives on engaging stakeholders

Marginalized stakeholders

Freewheeling dialogue

Informal methods of inquiry

End result: social capital

Research Methodology 21 Objective

Setting

Actors

Data Collection

Findings and Analysis 27 Neighborhood councils and community organizations

Artists People experiencing homelessness

Glendale Narrows stakeholders

Recommendations 37

References 41


10/45

Crews place rock on the River’s sides during channelization on April 1, 1938.

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.


11/45

9

INTRODUCTION

A house slipping into the river during the 1914 flood.

Source: LA Public Library photo collection.

FROM CHANNELIZATION TO REVITALIZATION Throughout it s history, the Los Angeles River has played an integral part in sustaining

human life in the Los Angeles Basin. In The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death and Possible

Rebirth, geographer Blake Gumprecht (1999) examines this history in depth. Gumprecht

cites radiocarbon dating evidence from William McCawley’s The First Angelinos (1996)

to indicate that the Los Angeles River has served the needs of native groups located in

the area for thousands of years, including forty-five Gabrielino villages that were located

near the course of the River prior to the arrival of European explorers (p. 30-31). Later,

when Spanish settlers were granted permission to establish a pueblo in the area, they

selected a site one-half mile west of the River because it was a reliable source of water forfarming (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 42). Eventually, due in part to the California Gold Rush and

the completion of a transcontinental railroad link to Los Angeles, this settlement grew

from a small agricultural village to an important regional trading center in the nineteenth

century (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 56 and 83).

As population exploded, residential and commercial development replaced farmlands

and the River’s natural flooding, previously seen as beneficial for agricultural lands,

became costly and dangerous as homes and businesses were established in the

floodplain (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 150-151). While floods dating back to the late 1800s

prompted proposals for flood management measures, it was the catastrophic flood ofFebruary 1914 that served as a catalyst for the creation of the Los Angeles County Flood

Control Association (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 178). In 1934, flooding again devastated homes

and businesses. When local taxpayers would not support measures to construct flood

control projects, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District requested federal support

for flood damage. Two years later, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was brought in to build

dams to regulate runoff during storms (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 173). Within the City of Los

Angeles, the River has since been jointly maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers, the


12/45

10

LA County Flood Control District and the City (City of Los Angeles, 2007, p. 9-3).

The first proposal to revitalize the River actually existed decades before its channelization

when Dana Bartlett, inspired by the City Beautiful movement, wrote The Better City in 1907.

Bartlett, founder of the Bethlehem Institute, which provided baths, counseling, and social

services to the poor, wanted to create riverside parks and promenades in addition to a

grand civic center in order to avoid the crowded conditions of other cities, but his plan was

never realized (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 259). In the same year, the Municipal Art Commission

of Los Angeles proposed that the Los Angeles City Council hire Charles Mulford Robinson,

one of the fathers of the City Beautiful movement, to develop a beautification proposal for

Los Angeles. His report was published in 1909, but he made few recommendations for the

river channel, except that it should be cleared of trash, lined with willows and cottonwoods,

and include “handsome” bridges (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 260). The most significant early

proposal for beautification of the River was made in 1930 when Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.

and Harland Bartholomew were commissioned to develop a comprehensive plan for park

development in Los Angeles County (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 265). Olmsted and Bartholomew

recommended that parkways be established along more than 17 miles of the River. They

also recommended that regulations be established to prevent building on the floodplains.

This plan was also never realized (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 267).

Despite these plans for beautification, the risk of flooding remained the paramount

concern for people in Los Angeles. This concern was realized during the March 1938 flood,

which inundated thousands of acres adjacent to the River and caused the deaths of forty-

five people and millions of dollars in damage (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 215-216). This event

solidified the need for a channel that was lined with concrete to hold in even the mostextreme conditions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a more elaborate plan for

flood management in LA County, and it was endorsed by Congress and funded through the

Flood Control Act of 1941 (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 220-222). Work on the Los Angeles County

Drainage Area Project included 3.5 million barrels of cement and 147 million pounds of

reinforced steel, and was fully completed in 1970 (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 226).

For decades, the River lay guarded by chain link fence and barbed wire, only used for

A map of the 1930 Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan for Los

Angeles. Source: Delirious LA.


13/45

11

Poet, activist and founder of Friends of the Los Angeles River,

Lewis MacAdams. Source: Bloomberg/Getty.

illegal purposes (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 236). In 1985, however, a group of artists and poet

Lewis MacAdams saw potential in the River and founded Friends of the Los Angeles River

(FoLAR), marking the birth of an advocacy movement to revitalize the River (Gumprecht,

1999, p. 250-253). Since FoLAR’s founding, both Los Angeles County, in 1996, and the City

of Los Angeles, in 2007, adopted plans to revi talize the River. These plans have led to local,

state, and federal legislation that has raised millions of dollars for revitalization projects,

including over 20 miles of bike paths, signage, new parks, and a summer kayaking

recreation program (City of Los Angeles, 2016).

AN EMERGING GAP IN PUBLIC TRUSTOne of the most significant milestones in the revitalization effort came in 2006, when the

City signed an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to co-sponsor

an ecosystem restoration study and establish a partnership with the federal government.

This led to a $10 million USACE investigation to gauge federal interest in and the feasibility

of ecosystem restoration (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2016). The result of the studywas a combined Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report

recommending a comprehensive restoration of the 11-mile Glendale Narrows portion

of the River. In 2015, the USACE Civil Works Review Board unanimously approved this

$1.3 billion restoration plan in Washington D.C. (Fox, 2013). As of May 2016, the project is

pending authorization and appropriation of funds by the United States Congress.

The progression of the USACE plan, however, has not been the only noteworthy

revitalization event recently. In August 2015, River LA, a nonprofit established by the

City in 2009 to spur development along the River (and formerly known as the LA River

Revitalization Corporation), announced its commission of famed architect Frank Gehry tostudy the River’s water (Jamison, Groves, & Weikel, 2015). Moreover, in an interview with

The New York Times, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti explained that Gehry would elevate

the revitalization project so the “civic elite” would take notice, alluding to the importance

of private funding for the project (Nagourney, 2015).

These events have led to news reports outlining public concern about the project. In May

2014, the Los Angeles Times published an article, “Big plans, and concerns, surround L.A.


14/45

12

River’s revitalization,” discussing the estimated billions of dollars in new developments

expected to come from the USACE project and the housing cost impacts it poses to current

riverfront residents (Sahagun & Saillant, 2014). More recently, KCRW published a report

about gentrification coming to the LA River (Gonzalez, 2015), and The Nation released

an article, “Will the Los Angeles River Become a Playground for the Rich?”, claiming the

revitalization project has “gone from social-justice crusade to money-soaked land grab”

(Kreitner, 2016).

To some extent, public concern is a natural part of a project that is as expansive, mul ti-

benefit and multijurisdictional as the LA River revitalization. Since channelization, the

River’s primary function has been to serve as a 51-mile-long flood channel, draining an 870

square mile watershed area. Revitalization, however, unlocks the potential for many other

uses. For example, from an ecological perspective, the River represents an opportunity to

restore a riparian habitat in one of the most urbanized areas in the world and a chance

to capture and reclaim runoff water in a region prone to drought. For riverf ront residents,

revitalization represents the possibility of a network of connected green spaces in a

park-poor part of the City that could offer a place for active and passive recreation like

bicycling, kayaking, and bird watching.

Implementing such changes, however, is complicated by the political and financial realities

of the project. Financially, it is an enormously expensive public undertaking that requires

layered public, nonprofit and private capital. Politically, the River is a multijurisdictional

body that runs through fourteen cities, including twenty Neighborhood Councils in the

City of Los Angeles, and is maintained by numerous governing bodies. The permitting

process for projects in or adjacent to the River channel often involves approval from

agencies at multiple levels of government, such as the Departments of Transportation

and Water and Power and the Bureau of Engineering at the City, the Department of Public

Works at the County, and the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers at the federal level.

In short, it is a classic example of the type of planning problem Rittel and Webber

described as ‘wicked’ in 1973. Whereas problems based solely in the natural science are

A map showing the footprint of the USACE LA River Ecosystem

Restoration Project. Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.


15/45

13

definable, separable, and may have findable solutions, planning problems like this are

ill-defined, rely upon political judgment, and may never be fully solved (Rittel & Webber,

1973). Restoring perhaps the most significant natural feature in the history of Los Angeles,

it turns out, is a wicked problem.

Acknowledging this complexity, the aim of River Talk is to identify how agencies governing

the River, such as the City of Los Angeles, can build social capital and public trust for

its revitalization. Specifically, this document communicates the results of a qualitative,

phenomenological research study that was conducted to understand the perceptions and

participation of LA River community stakeholders, including neighborhood council board

members, business owners, artists, homeless services organization representatives, and

other community organization representatives. The study ran from October 2015 to April

2016 and included thirty community stakeholder interviews, six site observations, and

three document analyses. The findings were analyzed in the context of urban planning,

urban design, and public policy literature on engaging stakeholders in order to inform

recommendations that will initiate a collaborative River revitalization dialogue. In the

following sections, this report reviews the relevant literature, outlines the research

methodology used, discusses the findings from the data, and makes recommendations

for the future.


16/45


17/45

15

LITERATURE REVIEW

PERSPECTIVES ON ENGAGING STAKEHOLDERSNo matter how wicked a problem may be, community engagement literature from the past

half-century tells us that in order to be successful, a planning project must cultivate the

trust of the public. The need for trust and reciprocit y to effect ively solve public problems

is a research topic that was popularized through such publications as Bowling Alone: The

Collapse and Revival of American Community by Robert Putnam (2000). Putnam argued

that social capital—meaning the networks, connections, and relations that exist among

people in a society—has an inherent value, especially for civic engagement. In urban

planning, the increase in the importance of social capital pre-dated Putnam’s book by

nearly forty years with the rise of advocacy and participatory planning that began withJane Jacobs’s 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cit ies. Today, building public

trust in the processes that shape public policy and urban design is viewed as critically

important to the success of planning projects.

As research on this topic has blossomed in the twenty-first century, it has also become

more specialized within the built environment fields. The work of Jane Jacobs, who was

not formally trained in a built environment field, was broad and cross-disciplinary. Today,

however, scholars in architecture, landscape architecture, urban planning, and public

policy, each develop their own approaches to community engagement. This literature

review acknowledges that public planning initiatives like revitalizing an urban riverrequire community involvement in the formation of policy and design. Because of this, it

examines publications from both the public policy and urban design professions.

The two publications this review most heavily draws from are Everyday Urbanism:

Expanded by John Chase, Margaret Crawford, and John Kaliski (2008), which proposes a

new paradigm for urban design, and Planning with Complexity: A Public Policy Approach

to Solving Intractable Public Problems by Judith Innes and David Booher (2010). These

Putnam (2000) explains how Americans have

become increasingly disconnected from family,

friends, neighbors, and democratic structures

in Bowling Alone. Source: BowlingAlone.com.


18/45

16

Everyday Urbanism: Expanded (2008) promotes a design paradigm

that provides a way to reconnect urban design to ordinary human

life. Source: UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design.

books and others establish the criteria for engaging stakeholders in processes that lead to

successful planning outcomes. This review finds that the most successful processes are

inclusive of marginalized stakeholders, rely on freewheeling dialogue, and are conducted

using informal methods of inquiry. Ultimately, the implementation of these factors proves

to create new relationships in a community, building critical social capital.

MARGINALIZED STAKEHOLDERSPublic planning initiatives must be inclusive of marginalized stakeholders because missing

stakeholders can jeopardize public trust entirely. Chase, Crawford, and Kaliski (2008)

emphasized this notion in their work Everyday Urbanism: Expanded , which promoted a

design paradigm that provides a way to reconnect urban design to ordinary human life.

Their theory is rooted in a “radical repositioning” of the designer—a shif t in power from

the professional expert to the ordinary individual (Chase et al., 2008, p. 9). These everyday

urbanists argue for the transfer of authority from experts to individual users in order

to bring power struggles to the forefront of the design and planning process. Becausedesigners must listen to the “voices, dreams, and desires” of users, the end result is a set

of proposals and counterproposals that proceed “tactically from the ground up” (Chase et

al., 2008, p. 107). Everyday Urbanism, thus, forces planners and designers to examine the

“debates and struggles” over economic participation, democracy, and identity that exist

in these spaces (Chase et al., 2008, p. 29). This approach ensures that no stakeholder is

left out.

Judith Innes and David Booher (2010), in Planning with Complexity , argue for a process

of policy development that is ‘collaboratively rational,’ meaning all affected interests

are jointly engaged in a dialogue that is inclusive to all participants, whether they arepowerful or not. They argue that only total inclusivity will uncover what is hidden behind

socially constructed understandings because diverse stakeholders assure that the

difficult questions are addressed. Both from a design and policy standpoint, including

stakeholders that are often forgotten helps build public trust and leads to a stronger final

outcome.


19/45

17

FREEWHEELING DIALOGUE The second ingredient to a successful communit y engagement process is a reliance on

freewheeling dialogue as a means to develop action. For Innes and Booher, a freewheeling

dialogue occurs around a table where various perspectives can be discussed. They

emphasize that the process should be face-to-face because in-person, unrestraineddialogue leads to the discovery of mutual gain opportunities, and, thus, agreements that

are robust, rather than superficial or weak.

In urban planning, community dialogue often takes place in the form of a public meeting, a

setting that is hardly freewheeling and rarely around a table. Community activist, planner,

and artist James Rojas (2015) criticizes the traditional urban planning public meeting as

something that is rigid and formal, often creating conflict and limiting creativity. He also

explains that the communication tools of urban planners are abstract: numbers, words,

PowerPoints, and surveys. These tools have the opposite effect of freewheeling and face-

to-face dialogue. Michael Rios (2014) echoes this notion, explaining that public meetings,community charrettes, and other tools of planning can create “illusions of democracy.” To

build trust, it seems, planners should rely primarily on the simplest tool: talking.

In addition to how planners conduct community dialogue, where they conduct it can

be equally important. Landscape architect Randolph Hester (2006), in Design for

Ecological Democracy , argues that designers and planners must first create places that

enable citizens to connect with neighbors in their localities. A strong democracy, he

says, cannot occur without the forum for thoughtful and deliberative cooperation. This

is why he underscores the importance of creating centers, such as parks and plazas,

where community members share interests and are drawn together for face-to-face civicengagement. For some planning initiatives, however, no established centers exist for a

community dialogue to take place. To this point, Hou and Kinoshita (2007) respond that

stakeholders should be engaged through informal events and meeting places, such as

neighborhood events, tours, and personal conversations. This approach helps overcome

the limitations of institutionalized participation by creating new social relationships

among the participants.

“A process is collaborativelyrational to the extent thatall the affected interests

jointly engage in face to facedialogue, bringing their various

perspectives to the table todeliberate on the problems they

face together.” Innes and Booher (2010) in Planning with Complexity


20/45

18

INFORMAL METHODS OF INQUIRY Finally, urban planners, designers, and policymakers should incorporate informal

methods of inquiry into the planning and design process. In “Why Urban Planners Should

Work with Artists”, Rojas (2015) uses Los Angeles’s Eastside Latino community as an

example of a group that has historically been left out of the planning dialogue. According

to him, residents in East LA have been excluded by the narrow set of tools and uncreative

community outreach strategies used by urban planners. To learn about a place and its

inhabitants, planners typically collect data in the form of numbers, maps, policy, and

maybe a site visit or talking to people. In this way, planners miss the music, narratives,

visual arts, and other cultural assets that are the “verve” of the Latino community in East

Los Angeles. As an alternative, Rojas suggests that urban planners should learn from the

Chicano artists because their artistic process represents a method of inquiry that reflects

their community in a visceral way. Local zoning codes, for example, cannot account

for a front yard that becomes a plaza or a store sign that becomes a work of art. Rojas

recommends that planners approach their method of inquiry by “using their body andsenses” to explore the site. He says that planners should ask the same questions artists

ask, such as, How does the site feel? What do I see or not see? What are the urban patterns

playing out within the site? What are the relics here?

This approach is similar to the one Walter Hood (1999) outlines in “Urban Diaries:

Improvisation in West Oakland, California.” He uses improvisation to document the patterns

of a site in order to bring true-to-life community issues to the surface. The main feature

of this method is the objective nature of the observer while she or he is experiencing a

place. Acknowledging that most spaces have historically been created from middle-class

values, Hood suggests that urban planners operate by “throwing away preconceivednotions, moral stances, and reformist approaches” (Chase et al., 2008, p. 155). This frees

designers and planners to use their eyes and ears to observe everyday life. It also means

that the observer will not place judgment on uses and activities that subvert the original

goals of the site, such as the presence of adults that are homeless drinking alcohol in a

minipark or teenagers expressing themselves through graffiti. For Hood, an open mind

is the key to understanding difference; this allows an observer to understand the non-

traditional views of city li fe.

The River Rover, FoLAR’s Mobile Visitor and Education Center that

travels the streets and freeways “bringing the River to the people.”

Source: Friends of the Los Angeles River.


21/45

19

As a final set of examples, Margaret Crawford and Michael Rios have explored non-

traditional urban design and planning tools with their students. To understand the

experiences of individuals in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Crawford’s Harvard design

students focused on “the more uncertain realm of subjective experience,” avoiding the

abstract tools typically used by planners, such as “statistical information and maps ofurban zones and land uses or traffic engineering” (Chase et al., 2008, p. 210). Similarly,

Michael Rios (2014), in “Learning from Informal Practices: Implications for Urban Design,”

describes the process of using informal design practices to understand minority groups.

He describes his students’ use of visual documentation (e.g., photography or video clips)

in order to supplement a narrative (e.g., journal or poetry) that can “capture the embodied

qualities of a site” (Rios, 2014, p. 181). The utility of this technique is echoed by Innes

and Booher (2010) who argue that stories are critical to communication across lay and

professional cultures because stories can capture the essence of a culture’s value system

whether factually true or not.

END RESULT: SOCIAL CAPITAL The result of a process that includes marginalized stakeholders, is based on freewheeling

dialogue, and makes use of informal methods of inquiry, is a community for which social

capital potential is unleashed. Hester (2006) gives an important example f rom his work on

the participatory design process of Runyon Canyon in Hollywood. At the f inal community

meeting, a park neighbor stood up to say, “the best thing about the project is that we got

to know out neighbors.” Innes and Booher (2010) agree; the longest lasting outcomes and

system adaptations build on the relationships and learning that emerge from a genuinely

collaborative dialogue.

“Tis is a good plan, but the bestthing about this project is thatwe got to know our neighbors.”

A community stakeholder quote from Hester (2006) in Design

for Ecological Democracy


22/45

Los Angeles River bike path through the West San

Fernando Valley. Source: Streetsblog L.A./Photo: Joe

Linton, 2014.


23/45

21

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVE The objective of this research study is to understand the perceptions and par ticipation

of LA River community stakeholders and use the findings to inform recommendations

that can initiate a collaborative revitalization dialogue. For this objective, a qualitative,

phenomenological research approach was taken to answer two primary research

questions:

1. How do community stakeholders describe their relationship to the LA River?

2. How are stakeholders informed about and engaged in the effort to revitalize the

River?

SETTING The setting of the research was the Los Angeles River. While some field observations

have been made on-site, most research was not conducted at the River. This was due

to the geographic size of the River (32 miles within the City of Los Angeles), and its

limited access in some parts. Additionally, much of the community’s participation in the

revitalization effort does not take place at the River; instead, it happens in neighborhood

council meetings, at City Hall, and online.

ACTORS The main actors of the study are thirt y community stakeholders, including neighborhood

council board members, business owners, artists, homeless services organization

representatives, and other community organization representatives. On the following

page is a list of categories of stakeholders interviewed. These categories were chosen due

to their diversity of interests and their historical relationship to the River. Artists, people

experiencing homelessness, and neighborhood groups, especially, have a longstanding


24/45

22

history with the Los Angeles River. Stakeholders interviewed included:

• 7 neighborhood council board members

• 5 business owners

• 5 artists

• 3 homeless services organization representatives• 2 school representatives

• 2 religious institution representatives

• 2 art-related organization representatives

• 1 chamber of commerce board member

• 1 community nonprofit representative

• 1 apartment complex manager

• 1 city park ranger

The names and locations of each of the organizations represented by the these individuals

are mapped on the following page. To select individual participants, all neighborhood

councils, businesses, schools, and religious institutions within a quarter-mile of the River

were first identified. This was done using the City of LA’s websites for neighborhood

councils (www.empowerla.org) and geo-spatial databases (www.geohub.lacity.org) in

addition to Google Maps (www.google.com/maps). These websites provided locations of

River-adjacent community organizations and businesses. Due to constraints of time and

resources, not all relevant stakeholders within a half-mile of the River could be invited to

participate. Instead, with input from City of LA staff, certain stakeholders were purposefully

selected because of their location and the availability of their contact information. The

goal was to have a mix of stakeholders representing the full length of the River (within the

City of LA) and with a diverse set of needs. In total, individuals were invited to participate

from 20 neighborhood councils, 18 businesses, and 10 community organizations.

The study also included two stakeholder groups that could not be identified through cit y

databases: artists and representatives from homeless services agencies. To identify LA

River artists , John Arroyo’s 2010 MIT thesis, Culture in Concrete: Art and the Re-imagination

of the Los Angeles River as Civic Space, which examined 20 art projects at or inspired by

The LA River Revitalization Master Plan (2007). Source: Cityof Los Angeles.


25/45

23

the River, was examined. This led to 9 artists or art-related organizations being invited to

interview.

Homeless services agencies were identified through the Homeless Shelter Directory

(www.homelessshelterdirectory.org) and LA County’s 211 LA website (www.211la.org). In

total, representatives from 6 homeless services agencies or organizations were invited

to participate. One important note is that although people experiencing homelessness

are a significant stakeholder group of the River, no individuals living at the River were

interviewed. This is due to two reasons. First, the window for interviews occurred during

an El Niño winter that made accessing the River unsafe; in addition, many parts of the

Map by Andrew Stricklin. Street data from the U.S. Census Bureau.


26/45

24

River where people live, such as along the Glendale Narrows and near the Arroyo Seco

Confluence, were barricaded off by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a safe ty precaution.

The second reason is that the limited time frame for the data collec tion window did not

allow time for the coordination with social workers to identify, locate, and interview

people living at the River.

DATA COLLECTION The primary data collection strategy used was semi-structured interviews. From February

2016 to April 2016, representatives from all thirty stakeholder groups were interviewed

either by phone or in person. An interview protocol form was used to record notes during

each interview. Each participant was asked the same (or some variation of the same) six

questions:

1. How would you describe you/your organization’s relationship to the Los Angeles

River?2. What do you/people from your organization know about the plan to revitalize

the River?

3. Have you/people from your organization been involved in any way in the

revitalization effort?

4. What do you think would increase participation?

5. How do you expect to find out about updates to the River revitalization?

6. What does the revitalization mean to you?

In addition to interviews, field observations and document analyses were also used as

data collection strategies in order to collect additional information. Six field observationsbetween November 2015 and March 2016 were made in order to observe formal and

informal activities. These observations were made at the River in Canoga Park, the

Sepulveda Basin, Studio City, Atwater Village, Elysian Valley, and Downtown Los Angeles.

These sites were selected for the variation of the physical environment they provided

both within and adjacent to the River channel. In Canoga Park and Studio City, the River

channel is completely concrete and surrounded by residential and commercial land uses;

in the Sepulveda Basin, the River channel is natural with no concrete and surrounded

The LA River Channel in Canoga Park. Photo: Andrew Stricklin,

2015.


27/45

25

by recreation areas and preserved land; in Atwater Village and Elysian Valley, the River

channel has concrete banks with a soft, natural bottom, and the adjacent land uses are

mostly residential and industrial; and, f inally, in Downtown the River channel is completely

concrete, surrounded by industrial land uses.

Five documents, including the City’s 2007 LA River Revitalization Master Plan, one setof meeting minutes, and three newspaper articles, were analyzed. Both the meeting

minutes and the newspaper articles addressed people experiencing homelessness at the

River. This analysis provided important supplementary information because, as explained

previously, no individuals who live at the River were interviewed for this study. These

documents gave important insight into the perceptions of homeless adults living at the

River as well as detailed accounts of their living conditions.

Kayaking in the Sepulveda Basin. Photo: Andrew Stricklin, 2015.


28/45

Equestrian riders in the LA River channel near Griffith Park.Source: Play the LA River/Photo: Jeff Houze.


29/45

27

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

To interpret the data, all information, including notes and recordings, was organized, hand-

coded, and aggregated by theme. The themes that surfaced were communication about

the revitalization, physical access to the River, exclusivity of the project, and diverging

stakeholder values. Throughout the process, the data was organized categorically,

reviewed repeatedly, and continually coded. Then, to represent the data, it was formed

into a narrative passage that could serve as a representation of community stakeholders’

experiences. What follows is the result of this process. The first three findings are presented

by stakeholder type: neighborhood councils and community organizations, artists, and

people experiencing homelessness. The fourth finding is related to a geographic location.

. NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONSNeighborhood councils and community organizations value River revitalization as an

opportunity for increased public access and open space, but participation is largely

determined by the type of access that groups have to the river and the communication

they receive about it.

A mostly positive vision of the revitalizationWhen asked what revitalization meant for their communities, all neighborhood

representatives responded with a positive vision. The most common vision described

included open space and opportunities for recreation at the River. For example, aDowntown LA resident expressed her opinion that because Downtown is “completely

starved” for recreation and green space, people would really love if the River was a place

for open space. Many of the visions included the need for a place that was relaxing and

conducive to passive recreation. These responses included such phrases and comments

as “a place for scenic beauty,” “a respite from traffic and daily life,” and “a place where

visitors can stroll along the River and check out shops and cafes.” A few representatives

also acknowledged the opportunity for ecological benefits. These people mentioned


30/45

28

that the Cit y should purchase River-adjacent parcels for conservancy, use the River for

stormwater capture, and emphasize environmental and wildlife enhancement in the

revitalization.

Four representatives, while describing a positive vision of what revitalization will mean

to their community, did include negative aspects of revitalization. One person wasunsure why the City chose the most expensive revitalization option (referring to the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ARBOR Study ). Another person wanted to emphasize that

the primary function of the River needs to remain flood management. And, finally, two

people mentioned that development does concern some neighbors, especially in regard

to increasing housing cost.

Te impact of physical access on participationDespite across-the-board support for the potential benefits of revitalization, current

physical access to the River has a major impact on participation. Communities with

high levels of access describe a strong relationship with the River. For example, a boardmember from Atwater Village Neighborhood Council explained, “We are right on the River

and so we are very much in touch with everything that is going on.” A school administrator

at St. Frances de Sales Elementary School—a school that is directly adjacent to the River

channel—described the recently constructed River path in the school’s neighborhood

as a safe new amenity for students to access a nearby commercial plaza instead of

using the traffic-heavy Ventura Boulevard. For other groups where River access is new,

like the Canoga Park Neighborhood Council and the Winnetka Neighborhood Council,

representatives expressed a desire to increase participation from their organizations now

that access exists.

Conversely, neighborhood and community groups with limited access to the River do not

describe a strong relationship to it. For example, a neighborhood council board member

from Glassell Park explained that although many people are aware of the revitalization

in his neighborhood, there is not a lot of participation because “most of it is happening

on the other bank” and the train tracks block Glassell Park from the River. Similarly, a

Downtown LA Neighborhood Council board member commented that she believes people

A rendering of the Arroyo Seco Confluence from the USACE

LA River Ecosystem Restoration Project. Source: USACE/

Rendering: Mia Lehrer+Associates and RAC Design Build.


31/45

29

in her neighborhood do not participate in River-related activities or meetings because

Downtown is “reasonably far away” from the River.

Te impact of communication on participationIn a third of the interviews conducted, respondents expressed frustration that

communication about the River Revitalization is unclear. Some of the responses thatexpressed this frustration include:

• “News about the River is spotty at best.”

• “It would be wonderful if someone would come update us.”

• “No place exists for universal information—where can I find all the projects in one

place?”

• “Are we on track? Are there delays?”

• “I haven’t received any information regarding the River directly f rom the City in my

two years as a board member.”

Six representatives responded that they believe better communication would increase

participation in their community. The most common way people are informed about

updates to the River revitalization is by news reports. For some, this includes general

news sources, such as the Los Angeles Times. Other respondents mentioned more topic-

specific news sources, such as CurbedLA, or neighborhood news sources like Downtown

Muse. The second most common way people receive updates is via email. The primary

sources of LA River e-blasts include River LA (formerly known as the LA River Revitalization

Corporation), Friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR), and City Councilmember weekly

newsletters. Other ways of receiving news about the River include hearing about updates

from customers, searching online, tracking council files, receiving promotional materials

in the mail (e.g., Play the LA River interactive deck), and social media.

Lacking clear channels of communication, participation is limited to only those

stakeholders who proactively research and track updates about the River. Stakeholders

who want more information said that online searching and blogs are the best option, but

many did not know where to go.


32/45

30

. ARTISTSArtists value their personal connection to the River and i ts history, but they expressed

concern about the River becoming an exclusive place.

A personal connectionAmong the four groups in the study, artists, especially graffiti artists, have the most

personal connection to the River. Leo Limón, the graffiti artist well-known for painting the

River’s storm covers as ‘River Catz’ said, “I live, breathe, and love in the LA River because I

grew up on its utility roads.” For many of the artists, the neglected River channel offered a

place of self-discovery. SABER, a local graffiti artist described by some as one of the best

and most respected in the field, explained that graffiti was hated when he was growing

up, and because nobody cared about the River and they hated graffiti, it was a good fit.

For him and other artists like him, the River offered a place to experiment with creativity,

especially since high culture was inaccessible in Los Angeles. Another artist, ManOne,

expressed that the River felt like a playground for him and his friends growing up.

Non-graffiti artists also described a personal connection to the River. Photographer Bill

Johnson was attracted the River for its famous concrete bridges because he studied

construction management. This led him to spend forty nights in the River to capture the

perfect shot of the downtown bridges. Another photographer, Stephen Callis, described

that the River was “part of my life” in the 1990s when he lived in Silver Lake and began

photographing vacant lots along the bank.

In addition, these artists were familiar with the River’s complicated history. MargaretArnold, a news editor at NELAart, explains that this could be because artists have always

been drawn to the confluence of the LA River and the Arroyo Seco. She believes the River

represents pride in knowing where we came from. When asked what could increase

participation among artists, Leo Limón responded that a true “civics” could bring the full

“HERstory” of the LA River to the forefront, which includes the displacement of the native

Tongva people from the area and the Chicano Art Movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

One of Leo Limón’s LA River Catz. Photo: flickr user anarchosyn (A

Syn).


33/45

31

A fear of being excluded Despite their longstanding personal relationship to the River, graffiti artists feel like their

work is still misunderstood and the River is becoming increasingly exclusive. SABER

believes strongly that “there is a movement to eradicate our history with the LA River”

because people do not understand the depth of graffiti as an art form. He is “heartbroken”

that artists ’ legacy is not being preserved as the River transforms into an exclusive place.ManOne also expressed his frustration that LA River artists, even the ones who work as

professional artists now, have not been asked to be at the table. He described his effort

to include artists into the revitalization effort by coordinating “Meeting of the Styles” in

2007, an event that brought graffiti artists to the River from across the country. He said

that despite his efforts to work with officials, the ar t from the event was removed. He, too,

fears the River is becoming something that is not inclusive, even for artists who brought

attention to the River in the first place.

Finally, many artists believe the ar t projects permitted by the Plan are too safe or removed

from true engagement with the River and its users. The Plan prescribes that art “may befocused near the River, but should also occur outside the River right-of-way” (City of LA,

2007, p. 5-36). In his 2010 MIT thesis, John Arroyo examined “the patterns, motivations,

and history behind over 40 largely unheralded art projects over a 20-year period along

the River’s Glendale Narrows, Lower Arroyo Seco, and downtown” (p. 3). He found that

artists think the current restrictions are too safe and only due to the “pervasive thinking

of engineering, flood control, and life safety measures that have fundamentally dictated

planning along the River since the 1930s” (p. 141).

. PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESSRepresentatives from homeless services agencies and organizations explain thatpeople experiencing homelessness at the River value it because it is less restrictive,

more secure and has a stronger sense of community than other alternatives; they

also describe the need for dedicated outreach teams at the River.

A less restrictive environment People experiencing homelessness that live at the River often choose to do so because it

Meeting of the Styles event in 2007. Source: LAWeekly/Photo: Mark

Mauer, 2007.


34/45

32

is perceived as a less restrictive, more secure, and more spacious alternative to living on

a city street or even at a homeless shelter. The Director of Homeless Services at the Los

Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), Jeanette Rowe, explained that the River

environment is an accessible place where there is space for people and their belongings

and not many rules to follow. This is corroborated by Aura Bogado’s findings from her

2015 report on people living at the River and their precautions for El Niño. Living at theRiver, she writes, allows people to set their own schedule. Shelters wake people up very

early in the morning and then they have to return in the afternoon to wait in line for a bed

again. Additionally, some shelters only give people a small cubbyhole for their belongings

and they are often not pet friendly. These factors deter people from shelters. According

to Rowe, an ideal shelter transition for people who live at the River would be a place

that houses people for longer than 90 days, accepts pets, accepts people wi th varying

disabilities, and has a low threshold for substance abuse.

Security

Another factor that draws people to the River is security, even despite concerns about thehazard of flooding. KCET reporter Lucy Guanuna interviewed a woman named Jesse who

was evicted from her Highland Park apartment and moved to the Arroyo Seco/LA River

confluence. Jesse says that in her three years of being homeless, the River was the safest

place she stayed because it was removed from hostile neighbors and the harassment

of park rangers. People living on streets are often questioned, ticketed, arrested, or their

belongings are confiscated. This makes the remoteness of the River appealing, especially

for people that prefer to camp or have pets.

A sense of community

Finally, people are drawn to life at the River because of the sense of community it affords.People that set up encampments in “metro areas” (e.g., in Skid Row or on inner-city s treets)

often do not have enough time to build a strong community before they are displaced or

have to relocate. At the River, however, groups of encampments can go unbothered for

months. This allows for people to build relationships with one another. This strong sense

of community, in fact, is what often makes people who live at the River more resistant to

homeless services. When outreach teams at LAHSA encounter this, they work to identify

Encampments in the Los Angeles River drains. Source: LAWeekly/ Photo: Hillel Aron, 2015.


35/45

33

the “anchor” of the group—this is typically a person who has been at the encampment

for a long period of time and helps newcomers adapt to the River. Outreach teams believe

that if the anchor agrees to services , the rest of the group will follow.

Te need for outreach teams

Some respondents believe the solutions to homelessness presented in the Plan areineffective. The problem is that solutions that are top down, impose regulatory policies,

and do not consider the everyday experience of the people are not effective. The following

excerpt from the Master Plan illustrates some of these elements.

Many homeless encampments exist along the River, which can make visitors using

bicycle paths and pedestrian trails uncomfortable. These encampments are removed

periodically through police action, including a due process that involves posting signs

for a week in advance prior to evicting homeless encampments within the channel

right-of-way. The opportunity exists for this revitalization Plan to address homelessness

by creating more jobs within River-adjacent neighborhoods and increasing the amountof affordable housing provided throughout the region. (City of LA, 2007, p. 3-20)

The homeless services representatives interviewed explained that instead of emphasizing

regulatory policies, the Plan should focus on establishing funding and resources to

support dedicated outreach teams that specialize in working with people living at the

River. Further, while low-cost design amenities aimed toward helping people living at

the River, such as portable showers or laundry facilities, may seem like a short-term

fix, the homeless services representatives agreed that outreach teams are far more

important for housing people. If the end-goal is housing, they explained, amenities must

be implemented in conjunction with outreach teams who can build relationships with their clients in order to link them to housing.

. GLENDALE NARROWS STAKEHOLDERSStakeholders with interests in the Glendale Narrows stretch of the River expressed

concerns about development, transparency, and governance.


36/45

34

Development Five out of the six people interviewed from Atwater Village or Elysian Valley expressed

concern about developers and money in the revitalization. This stretch of the River,

referred to as the “Glendale Narrows,” is the centerpiece of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers ecosystem restoration project. A business owner in Elysian Valley explained

that how he thinks, “it’s a fantastic opportunity…But recently I’ve become down about the whole thing. It seems like an opportunit y for people to make money.” This sentiment

was also expressed by two board members of neighborhood groups, one of whom stated,

“The only negative is the speculation due to real estate. This is a major concern for some,

especially renters.” Theses stakeholders along the Glendale Narrows portion of the River

are concerned that real estate developers have too much control over what is happening

to the River.

ransparency and governance There is also a belief that the governing agencies are not transparent about what is

happening with the revitalization. A Downtown business owner responded that she thinksparticipation would increase if “we knew our feedback would be important and would not

be steamrolled.” Similarly, a board member of the Atwater Village Chamber of Commerce

expressed that the “River groups” are confusing, mentioning that, “It keeps changing,” “Is

it still the Army Corps? What about Frank Gehry?,” and “The River is so complex—FoLAR,

River Corp, the City.” Related to this point, an Atwater Village representative explained that

River governance is very frustrating because when someone in her community has an

issue, they don’t know where to go or who to talk to: “Do they go to the County or the City?

What about the Army Corps?” Three of the respondents did not seem to understand what

agencies have jurisdiction over the River: the LA County Flood Control District, the City’s

LARiverWorks Office, or the U.S . Army Corps of Engineers. One of the most common names these respondents used when describing River governance is Friends of the Los Angeles

River, which is a nonprofit that does not have any governmental jurisdiction over the River.

A be fore and after depictio n of the Taylor Yard G-2 Parcel in theGlendale Narrows. Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.


37/45

35


38/45

Northeast Los Angeles Riverfront Collaborative.Source: City of LA.


39/45

37

RECOMMENDATIONS

From the literature review and the findings from the data analysis, the following is alist of five recommendations about engaging community stakeholders. Acknowledging

that community dialogue—River Talk —requires all parties to work together, these

recommendations, mostly rooted in policy and planning actions, are intended for not only

the River’s governing agencies, but for all River stakeholders.

1. River governing agencies should develop communications strategies thatare clear and accessible to community stakeholders.

Stakeholders receive messages across a number of media, especially news sources,

email, and social media. Planners should prioritize the development of a streamlinedcommunications strategy. This should include a central place where community

representatives can look for list of the most recent events that are taking place with

the revitalization. Planners should also coordinate with neighborhood council board

members to ensure they are informed about how to learn about the revitalization. Finally,

staff from across different River governing agencies and organizations should coordinate

their communications strategies so that community stakeholders do not receive mixed or

redundant messages.

2. Neighborhood groups and River governing agencies should work togetherto produce events that include safe, informal access to the River.

The literature review found that building social capital is a critical way to build trust for

public planning initiatives: Innes and Booher (2010) emphasized that a dialogue should

be ‘freewheeling’; Hester (2006) argued that there must be centers where citizens can

connect with their neighbors; and Hou and Kinoshita (2007) offered the idea that informal

events, tours, and personal conversations can overcome the limits of institutionalized


40/45

38

participation. In this study, the data showed that neighbors with less direct access to

the River, despi te being optimistic about revitalization, are less inclined to participate

in revitalization efforts. This indicates that they feel disconnected to the River and its

revitalization.

In order to include these community stakeholders, planners and neighborhood groupsshould work together to produce events that emphasize safe access to the River. For

residents of Glassell Park and Cypress Park, where the River is separated by railroad

tracks and industrial land uses, this could mean a community event co-sponsored by the

City and the neighborhood council at Rio de Los Angeles State Park that educates people

on the City’s plan to acquire the G-2 Taylor Yard parcel. On the other side of the River,

in Los Feliz, where the 5 freeway limits access to the River, this could mean a similarly

co-sponsored bicycle ride to showcase safe routes to the River’s bike path. These types

of events educate people about the River, but they also serve to facilitate relationship

building among neighbors, which will lead to the critical social capital needed to build

trust in the River revitalization.

3. Local artists and River governing agencies should work together to createevents that require the re-examination of rules regulating art at the River.

The data collected in this study shows that artists have a strong personal connection to the

River but feel left out of the revitalization effort. The literature underscores the importance

of including stakeholders that have historically been left out of planning processes (Chase

et al. 2008; Innes and Booher 2010). Including marginalized groups, like graffiti artists, will

not only help build public trust, but will also add a valuable perspective that may uncover

problems that would otherwise remain hidden.

To include this stakeholder group, planners should partner wi th artis ts to push the limi ts

on what is allowed within the River channel. This may include something similar to the

2007 “Meeting of Styles” event that artist ManOne described, or it could take the shape

of art installations within the River right-of-way. These types of programs will require

officials to acknowledge that they prefer a “homogeneous, predictable and well-ordered

environment where use and appearance are controlled” (Franck & Stevens, 2007).

FoLAR’s Frogspot. Source: CurbedLA


41/45

39

This acknowledgment could lead to commonsense rules and regulations about River

accessibility and diminish the notion that liability trumps all else.

4. Homeless services agencies and River governing agencies should partnerto establish outreach teams that connect people with permanent housing

options.

To be more inclusive of people experiencing homelessness, planners should continue

to forge relationships with social workers at homeless services agencies, such as the

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, Housing for Health, and ASCENCIA. This

connection will help revitalization officials better understand the needs of people living at

the River. From the data, the most important step to house people who live at the River is

the development of River-specific outreach teams that can build relationships with their

clients. People living at the River have different values and needs than people living on

City streets. Social workers trained to conduct outreach to these stakeholders will be the

most effective.

5. River governing agencies should conduct ongoing, face-to-face outreachwith stakeholders along the Glendale Narrows.

This study identif ied that several stakeholders along the Glendale Narrows stretch of the

River have concerns that the revitalization is being led by developers, real estate agents,

and public agencies that are not being transparent. One stakeholder explained that she

felt like her feedback “would be steamrolled.” Innes and Booher (2010) argued face-to-

face and freewheeling dialogue builds trust. With this in mind, staff from public agencies

should develop a plan to conduct outreach in communities along the Glendale Narrows throughout the duration of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers restoration project that is

informal and face-to-face. River governing agencies should also better communicate

opportunities for public input , such as the LA River Cooperation Committee, which holds a

quarterly meeting that includes officials from the City, the County, and the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers. This type of intentional outreach will help establish public trust and make

the project more robust in the long term.


42/45

A mostly unpaved Los Angeles River running through Elysian Valley, also known as Frogtown, in 1940.

Source: USC Libraries/California Historical Society Collection.


43/45

41

REFERENCES

Arroyo, J. C. (2010). Culture in Concrete: Art and the Re-imagination of the LosAngeles River as Civic Space. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Urban

Planning, Cambridge.

Bogada, A. (2015, December 15). Homeless Angelenos call the riverbank home. What

will happen when El Niño hits? Grist. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from http://grist.org/

cities/homeless-angelenos-call-the-riverbank-home-what-will-happen-when-el-

nino-hits/

Chase, J., Crawford, M., & John, K. (2008). Everyday Urbanism: Expanded. New York:

The Monacelli Press.

City of Los Angeles (2007). Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan. Los

Angeles, CA: Author.

City of Los Angeles (2016). Los Angeles River Revitalization Milestones. Retrieved

May 6, 2016, from http://www.lariver.org/milestones.

Fox, H. (2013, September 13). Report recommends greening 11 miles of the Los

Angeles River for recreation and wildlife (photos). Southern California Public Radio.

Retrieved May 28, 2016, from http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/09/13/39239/report-

recommends-greening-11-miles-of-the-los-ang/

Franck, K., & Stevens, Q. (2007). Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life.

New York: Routledge.

Gonzalez, S. (2015, August 4). Gentrification comes to the L.A. River. KCRW. Retrieved


44/45

42

May 28, 2016, from http://curious.kcrw.com/2015/08/gentrification-comes-to-the-l-

a-river#.Vw0-jPkrKUk

Guanuna, L. (2016, January 6). L.A. River’s Homeless Find Shelter During El Niño

Storms. KCET. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from https://www.kcet.org/confluence/la-

rivers-homeless-find-shelter-during-el-nino-storms

Gumprecht, B. (1999). The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth.

Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hester, R. T. (2006). Design for ecological democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hou, J. and Kinoshita, I. (2007) Bridging Community Differences through Informal

Processes: Reexamining Participatory Planning in Seattle and Matsudo. In Journal of

Planning Education and Research, 26(3): 301–313.

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to

collaborative rationality for public policy. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Jamison, P., Groves, M., & Weikel, D. (2015, August 7 ). Architect Frank Gehry is helping

L.A. with its Los Angeles River master plan, but secrecy troubles some. Los Angeles

Times. Retrieved February 2, 2016, from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-

ln-la-river-frank-gehry-20150807-story.html

Kreitner, R. (2016, March 10). Will the Los Angeles River Become a Playground for the

Rich? The Nation. Retrieved May 28, 2016, from http://www.thenation.com/article/will-the-los-angeles-river-become-a-playground-for-the-rich/

McCawley, W. (1996). The first Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles.

Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press.

Nagourney, A. (2015, September 23). Frank Gehry Draws Ire for Joining Los Angeles


45/45

43

River Restoration Project. The New York Times. Retrieved March 15, 2016, f rom http://

www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/us/frank-gehry-draws-ire-for-joining-los-angeles-

river-restoration-project.html?_r=0

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American

community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rios, M. (2014). Learning from Informal Practices: Implications for Urban Design. In

V. Mukhija, & A. Loukaitou-Sideris, The Informal American City: Beyond Taco Trucks

and Day Labor. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy

Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.

Rojas, J. (2015, April 7). Why Urban Planners Should Work With Ar tists. KCET.

Retrieved February 15, 2016, from https://www.kcet.org/shows/artbound/why-urban-planners-should-work-with-artists

Sahagun, L., & Saillant, C. (2014, May 24). Big plans, and concerns, surround L.A.

River’s revitalization. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from http://www.

latimes.com/local/la-me-lariver-development-20140524-story.html

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (n.d.). Civil Works Program: Los Angeles River

Ecosystem Restoration Study. Retrieved 28 May 2016 from http://www.spl.

usace.army.mil/Media/FactSheets/tabid/1321/Article/477385/los-angeles-river-

ecosystem-restoration-study.aspx.

river talk: building trust among la river community stakeholders through a collaborative...

Documents