Deadspace Reborn: Brownfield Redevelopment along the LA River

Dead Space Reborn:

Brownfield Redevelopment along the LA River

Jack Moreau Senior Comprehensive Project Spring 2013

Professor Robert Gottlieb Professor Bhavna Shamasunder Occidental College

Table of Contents DEAD SPACE REBORN:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

2

ABSTRACT

3

INTRODUCTION

4

METHODOLOGY

8

LITERATURE REVIEW

9

A SWIM IN THE RIVER BUILDING URBAN COMMUNITIES BARRIERS TO REDEVELOPMENT ALONG THE LOS ANGELES RIVER

9 19 35

FINDINGS

44

RECOMMENDATIONS

57

LOOKING FORWARD

64

CONCLUSION

67

1

Acknowledgements

I would first like to thank my professors for guiding me through my Senior Comprehensive Project and offering important advice the entire way. I would also like to thank all of my helpful interviewees for the immense amount of insight that built the backbone of this research study. In particular, I want to thank Lewis MacAdams for his incredible work with the Los Angeles River over the past several decades that grew the river movement from scratch.

The river is a beautiful location and with the help of many it can become restored to its former glory and offer the surrounding communities an unparalleled asset of green space.

2

Abstract

The Los Angeles River was once a lush valley to Native American tribes whom settled the space for its fertility. With the arrival of western culture, a series of alterations led to the channelization of the river and the loss of much of its natural beauty. Where the river once served as a critical element for urban survival in Los Angeles, it had become a barrier, dividing the communities along side it. As the river became unrecognizable as natural environment, many factories used it as a dumping site for toxic chemicals.

Consequently, much of the river and the lands adjacent are contaminated with chemicals harmful to the surrounding communities. Several of these contaminated sites now lie vacant and available for restoration. The G2 parcel of the Union Pacific Railroad Taylor Yard is an unused industrial site with potential to offer 44 acres or green space and connect North East Los Angeles to the LA River. The City of Los Angeles Released an LA River Revitalization Master Plan in 2007 describing the city’s vision and implementation practices for river restoration; among the projects listed is the G2 parcel. In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers is wrapping up a seven yearlong study on the levels of contamination present in the river, clean up strategies, and cost analyses. The ecosystem restoration of the G2 parcel would provide the surrounding communities with greatly needed public space. The ultimate vision for the LA River is to provide a greenway system wherein a series of public green spaces and network of alternative transportation connect the San Fernando Valley to the Pacific Ocean.

3

Introduction

The redevelopment of the Los Angeles River is an ideal opportunity for community

development in Los Angeles as a means to unify a city often characterized as multi-­‐polar, disjointed, and polluted. The surrounding neighborhoods all have unique characteristics to offer one another, but the lack of connective infrastructure prevents those communities from interacting. The Los Angeles River is a major source of nature in the city that has the ability to change the entire paradigm of urban development in the city. Previous urban design has focused on auto-­‐transit oriented private space, but the LA River can be an alternative “green-­‐way”. The commons in Los Angeles were largely excluded during the post-­‐war housing development boom where the traditional suburban image was overwhelmingly applied to the urban landscape. The focus on private space led to underdevelopment of community shared park space. The lack of park space can have negative effects on community development by preventing neighbor interaction.

By connecting communities in Los Angeles, restoring ecosystems, and bringing residents outside of their homes, the city can become a model for popular development.

The LA River runs from the San Fernando Valley to the Pacific Ocean at Long Beach, thus offering an opportunity to unite every neighborhood in between. Yet, the river largely remains an unused, desolate, barrier to all that it touches, save for a few redeveloping portions. The Los Angeles River can be reshaped into a usable landscape as a means to reject the current system of private space, ecological destruction, and community disconnect while also supporting sustainability and healthy living.

4

Development of the LA River Bikeway, pocket parks, and LA River Master Plan have

kick started LA River revitalization and opened the door for future development. Strategic development of the river has been coordinated through various non-­‐profits, government agencies, and private entities. The current LA River Master Plan clearly outlines the development strategy currently being used by interested parties. The Master Plan embraces ecosystem restoration, urban renewal, and community connectivity. The vision of the river is much grander than in past generations as many city residents begin to realize its awesome potential. The LA River Bike Path, expanding parkspace, and pedestrian bridges are all signs of the ongoing rebirth of a blighted space.

The entire city, however, is severely underserved with green spaces and it is hurting

the residents.1 Los Angeles has very little park space in comparison to other cities and great disparities in acreage depending on local demographics. In a city with little vacant space, the LA River offers some of the final space available for new development. Concrete nearly covers the entire valley in which the river once roamed and the ramifications are devastating. Losses in wildlife along with public health threats have given Los Angeles a bad reputation for unsustainable development. As the city moves forward, it is important for it to consider the importance of green space in future development. The large tracts of vacant land along the LA River appear to be the obvious solution to an epidemic.

The Taylor Yard is a largely unused rail yard that lies in Cypress Park adjacent to the

LA River and it offers very unique potentials for river revitalization. The G2 parcel within the Taylor Yard is the site that divides the Rio de Los Angeles Park from the LA River and it is currently for sale by the Union Pacific. The possibilities to convert the space are endless,

1 Sloane, David Charles. Planning Los Angeles. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2012. Print.

5

but the development of a community park along with ecosystem restoration would mark a major milestone in LA River revitalization. The parcel’s potential to connect the surrounding communities to the river make it potentially beneficial to both surrounding communities and greater Los Angeles as a whole. A large revitalization project like this can change the global perception surrounding Los Angeles urban development and draw important attention, support, and resources for future projects. The redevelopment of the G2 parcel would be a grand step towards the development of a series of green spaces interconnected by routes of alternative transportation.

The G2 Parcel, however, is highly contaminated with toxic chemicals dumped by the

railroad companies and nearby factories. The levels of toxicity have been deemed unsafe for human use and thus the space remains untouched. Clean up for the site is blocked by expensive technology and extensive work. The Army Corps of Engineers is currently conducting a 9 million dollar investigation on the development feasibility of the LA River and the surrounding spaces, such as Taylor Yard. This study will finally uncover the extent of toxicity along with the recommended modes of decontamination. Currently, the Union Pacific Railroad owns the property and is negotiating terms of sale to a private developer.

Union Pacific would consider sale to a government entity or another private organization, but the lack of government funds makes this option unlikely for the time being.

The acquisition of the Taylor Yard property is critical for the future of the Los

Angeles River. If this site were converted to green space it would provide an underserved community with the necessary green space, restore battered ecosystems, and set precedent for LA River revitalization. The development of Taylor Yard can be the showcase park for Los Angeles that redirects the entire planning trajectory of the city. Los Angeles does not

6

need to be car driven and privatized any more and the development of the LA River could be the solution. The LA River is the opportunity to every neighborhood between the San Fernando Valley and the Pacific Ocean to establish a beautiful landscape and alternative transport. The development of the LA River can make Los Angeles the leading model for sustainable development in the world and set precedent for every other city.

Among influential policy and decision makers, there are several conflicting visions; this essay ought to offer some insight via comparative analysis of those visions along with lay out strategies for achievement. Through historical analysis, personal interviews, and participant observation I offer my vision of historical and current Los Angeles River development along with the political and economical barriers to development.

7

Methodology

The primary research was performed using personal interviews and participant observation. The interviews were semi-­‐structured with focal points, but generally open-­‐ ended. The interviewees were:

Josephine Axt, Chief of Planning, Los Angeles, Army Corps of Engineers

Carol Armstrong, Project Manager, LA River development department, Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering

Lewis MacAdams, President and Founder, Friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR)

Omar Brownson, Executive Director, Los Angeles River Revitalization Corporation (LARRC)

Miranda Rodriquez, Community Coordinator, LARRC

Melanie Winter, Executive Director, The River Project

Brad Cox, Senior Manager, Trammel Crow Company

Participant observation was conducted in the G2 parcel. The G2 parcel is a portion of the Taylor Yard, a Union Pacific owned rail yard in Cypress Park. The site was entered through a hole in the fence after individuals were observed from a distance. These individuals were approached in a friendly manner and asked a few questions about their actions and visions for the space. Four individuals were approached and several more were observed from a distance.

8

Literature Review

A Swim in the River

(Los Angeles River and Taylor Yard, 1945)

The Los Angeles River was a determining force in the development of the City of Los Angeles. Urbanization, however, has altered its appearance unrecognizably. Throughout Los Angeles history the river served as nature in the city by which much of the urban design was based. A series of urban development and technological shifts impacted the river piece by piece; slowly burying nearly all that was natural. Changes throughout the late 19th and 20th centuries such as the arrival of the railroad, import of water, and channelization of the river largely

9

impacted the use and perception of the river. The alterations of the river from the watershed to the Pacific Ocean have been closely linked to the deterioration of the adjacent communities. If the river were redeveloped it could mean revitalization of those communities as well. Now, the highly forgotten natural appendage can serve as a renewed asset. By once again reclaiming the river for nature in the city, Los Angeles can increase its green space, build community connectivity, and pull struggling communities out of poverty. However, to revitalize the river it is important to investigate how it transformed Los Angeles into its present urban landscape.

Blake Gumprecht wrote among the most comprehensive histories of the Los Angeles River in his book The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. The breadth, depth, and insight in this book make it the textbook for all current Los Angeles River studies for researchers and classrooms. Gumprecht tracks the Los Angeles River from the Native American settlements, through the arrival of the railroad, the river’s channelization, and the urbanization of the surrounding areas. This book not only explains how the river was developed, but also how perceptions of the river changed over time to influence those developments. The river was at first a sacred source of life, then quickly turned into a neglected industrial dumping ground, and now serves as a source for community camaraderie and development. Through an examination of this book, the current development along the Los Angeles River can be well understood; however, the book was published in 1999 and much has happened since then.

Robert Gottlieb added critical information to the LA River literature in his book Reinventing Los Angeles: Nature and Community in the Global City. Gottlieb dedicates a chapter of his book to describe the increased interest in LA River development that occurred in the 1980’s and carried through to present day. Political action organized by Lewis MacAdams renewed interest in the LA River and laid the foundation for a social movement to build around

10

its revitalization. Gottlieb follows the rise in action surrounding the LA River as the perception changes from a drainage and dumping site to a restored source of nature in the city.

Settlement along the Los Angeles began with the river because it was one of the very few water sources available in the southwest. For millennia, Native American tribes lived in the southwest, but it was not until the late 18th century that the fertile banks of the Los Angeles River were settled for agricultural production.2 At that time the valley where Los Angeles currently sits was a large flood plain, which allowed nutrients from the mountains to periodically cover vast spaces of land. The Spanish missions chose to settle where Downtown Los Angeles is located because it was one of the lesser-flooded locations. Yet for its first centuries, the pueblo of Los Angeles remained an isolated and primarily agricultural city.

Water was the most precious commodity for an agricultural town in an arid land and was treated as such. The city first started to control the river by digging irrigation channels, known as zanjas, and expanded the area that could be farmed as well as the types of fruits and vegetables that could be farmed.3 Those zanjas would later serve as the original street plan for modern Los Angeles. At this point in time, there was little preoccupation with the abundance of water in the river, but there was serious concern about the level of sanitation. Livestock crossed, people bathed, trash was dumped, animals drowned, vigilantes murdered, and religious ceremonies were all performed in the river, which led to widespread outbreaks of disease such as dysentery and smallpox. As a result the pueblo government instituted the first of many policy restrictions on the Los Angeles River. Some of these policies resulted in fines for releasing waste into the river, however the most important policy involved the construction of the first true sewer

2 Gumprecht, Blake. The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 3 Ibid.

1999. Print.

11

system in Los Angeles. From that point on the Los Angeles River would continually receive restrictions that further altered its usage, purpose, and course.

The river served as important natural guideline by which the first railroad lines in Southern California followed, which would later determine the first districting and subdivision of the city.4 In 1869, the first railroad in Southern California was constructed between Los Angeles and San Pedro. It began at the corner of Alameda Street and Commercial Street, present day Union Station, and followed the river down to the San Pedro port. Since the banks of the river were so highly prone to flood, they were seen to have little use other than for railroad tracks and agriculture. The railroad expansions also led to the first subdivisions of land in Los Angeles into districts for warehouses, lumber, blacksmiths, foundries, farmers, manufacturers and others. The Southern Pacific Railroad later purchased this section of railroad after the arrival of the Transcontinental Railroad.

As the region grew, so did the influence of the river on its development. Land value greatly increased if it bordered the river or a zanja.5 Other towns in the river basin, such as Downey, Compton, and El Monte were similarly founded because of their rich bottomlands. The population continued to rise and restrictions of the usage of the river grew. The farmers to the north in the San Fernando Valley were legally cut off from tapping the flow of the river after a series of court rulings. As the water supply weakened, the Los Angeles City Water Company as well as the city began tapping the water before it surfaced. It was becoming very clear that the city was draining the entire river and that new sources would soon need to be redirected for city usage.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

12

The arrival of the Transcontinental Railroad into Los Angeles caused an upheaval in the city’s development as thousands of passengers arrived and further depleted the city’s water supply.6 The zanja systems were dismantled and redirected to improve efficient development and the city continued to pull more water from the river’s reserve. The riverfront land became so valuable that farmers could sell their land for more than they could earn through farming on it.

As a result agriculture was pushed out of the city as the newcomers built residences by the city center. However, the increasing needs of the growing population also boosted agricultural growth and irrigation extension outside the city. Water became scarce and reservoirs were made to capture, distribute, and control that water as efficiently as possible. Some of these reservoirs were lined with concrete or covered with wooden roofs to prevent evaporation. The city’s main irrigation channel, the Zanja Madre, was the first piece of the river to become lined with concrete and channeled into pipes through the business district of the city.

The City of Los Angeles was able to execute all alterations of the river because of the “pueblo right”, which would serve as the most important piece of legislation for the future development of the Los Angeles River. The pueblo right gives the city absolute authority of control of all waters running into and from the Los Angeles River.7 This legislation would later allow the city to divert water from the Owens River Valley, leading to its destruction, as well as line the entire river with a concrete bed as a flood channel. Around 1898, Los Angeles officials began searching for alternative water sources for the city. In 1913, William Mullholland, Los Angeles’s most famous engineer, completed construction of the LA Aqueduct that brought water from the Owens River in the high Sierra Mountains to Los Angeles. The construction of the LA Aqueduct is often seen as the paradigm shift that set precedent for Los Angeles to take water

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

13

from fertile areas to support its own needs. This aqueduct primarily served homes and agricultural zones, leaving very little water in the bed when it reached Downtown LA. The overuse of the river’s resources left it nearly dry during the winter months as well as the summer months and the city began to change its perception of the uses of the river.8 Transients lived in the river, drug use prevailed, movies were filmed, sand-and-gravel quarries dug, and trash was dumped. Without heavy water flow during the winter months, the river soon became more of a pit, rather than a flood plain, that was used by major industry or the most impoverished individuals. The entire perception of the river had drastically changed and it was no longer the symbol of life and ultimate creator of the city. The river was viewed as having so little value that animal carcasses, raw sewage, and toxic industrial waste were dumped into it.

Furthermore, since there was little water left flowing, these substances sat in the riverbed until occasional winter floods carried them to the ocean.

The expansion of the city’s industrial corridor developed most of the land surrounding Downtown Los Angeles after World War I.9 The city and nation demand for goods exploded, which prompted many eastern-based companies to build satellite branches on the west coast; Los Angeles was the most profitable option for these entrepreneurs. The automobile industry especially moved out to the west coast where Ford, Willis-Overland, and Chrysler opened plants.

As a result, factories to produce raw materials for cars were also constructed such as US Steel, Bethlehem Steel, Consolidated Steel, Owens Glass, Alcoa Aluminum, American Can, and General Mills.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

14

These railroads, factories, and stockyards occupied most of the space between San Fernando Valley to Long Beach and toxic discharge was very common.10 The pollution practices occurring during this industrial boom would contaminate soils and prevent development of abandoned facilities to this day. Eventually, the river became so polluted that it was no longer feasible to pump any water from it once it reached the vicinity of the industrial corridor.

Los Angeles experienced cycles of boom and bust development in response to economic shifts. According to Robert Gottlieb, as the river lost its visual appeal and ability to bring in high value real estate it became more of a barrier to development than an asset.11 The Great Depression greatly limited the city’s ability to address flood concerns and economic drought.

Though the Olmstead brothers developed a comprehensive plan to connect Los Angeles though a series of parks, the lack of federal funding negated any possibilities of parkways along the river and made it difficult to develop any non-industrial usage of the river.

Two storms in 1934 and 1938 displayed the critical necessity for flood control in Los Angeles and prompted the intervention of the Army Corps of Engineers. Beginning in 1938, the Army Corps spearheaded the river’s refinement into a well-controlled flood basin.12 The “water freeway” was designed so that all of the rains from the San Gabriel Mountains moved the water through the city and to the ocean as quickly as possible. As the river lost all characteristics of a natural river, fences were built to line the concrete walls and kept all nearby residents out. The channelization was an unparalleled blow to the perception of the Los Angeles River because of the resulting lack of access and recognition it would receive.

10 Ibid.

11 Gottlieb, Robert. Reinventing Los Angeles: Nature and Community in the Global City. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2007. Print.

12 Gottlieb, Robert. Reinventing Los Angeles: Nature and Community in the Global City. Cambridge, MA: MIT,

2007. Print.

15

In the years approaching the following the channelization of the Los Angeles River, some groups, such as The Los Angeles River Pollution Committee in 1948, sought to begin river clean up.13 Additionally studies run by the California Department of Water Resources, which managed the California Aqueduct, found toxic waters a mile upstream from Los Angeles in 1965. After significant critical reception, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power was forced to initiate river cleanup. The California Department of Health Services finally revealed the long-term effects of industrial pollution in 1979 when many wells near the river were closed due to toxicity. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) founded the largest decontamination program through the Superfund program in 1980. These long-term programs conduct extensive studies to find the complete reach of the pollution as well as fund the decontamination of the designated sites. However, it was not until 1985 that a rise in river activism would bring light back onto the rivers poor situation.

In 1985, Friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR) emerged as the leading river advocacy group.14 Lewis MacAdams, the acting director of FoLAR, led the movement by first cutting a hole in the fence surrounding the river and reclaiming it for Los Angeles. FoLAR gained a strong reputation through the 1980’s and 1990’s for fighting against the government powers destroying what was left of the river. First, FoLAR initiated the argument that the LA River was still a living river as it had ecosystem growth in the soft bottom areas that could not be covered by concrete because of the high level of the water table; the water prevented the concrete from ever setting. The soft-bottom areas of the river run between the confluences of the river with the Arroyo Seco River up to the confluence with the Burbank Western Channel, which

13 Gumprecht, Blake. The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1999. Print.

14 Gottlieb, Robert. Reinventing Los Angeles: Nature and Community in the Global City. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2007. Print.

16

passes by areas such as Taylor Yard. Second, in 1989 FoLAR fought against the State Assembly and LA County Transportation to stop the construction of a freeway on top of the river and instead view the LA River as an actual river. Though the construction of the freeway was never a very serious concern, this fight served as an opportunity for FoLAR to expose the absurdity of the current perception of the LA River. Finally, a third defining moment in LA River activism was the fight against Army Corps’s proposal of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area (LACDA) to raise the walls along the river. Lewis MacAdams stated that this conflict was “a battle over the definition of the river, and what the river was going to be”.15 As FoLAR fought back against the Army Corps they aimed to redefine the river as much more than a flood-control channel, but rather an actual river that ought to be respected and improved.

Since FoLAR’s founding, the Los Angeles River has received drastically increasing attention from activists of all sorts. The activists agreed that the Los Angeles River must move beyond its “concrete era” and into a new form where access and ecosystem restoration are embraced.16 The controlling factor of the river’s renewal, however, was the funding for such projects. Eldon Kraft, former chief of the Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District’s planning section stated, “Our bias at the field level is trying to give clients what they want, but those clients would have to be able to bring money to the table”.17 As a result, investment projects such as parks and walkways were excluded from the discussion, even though they offer significant economic potential. Activists continue fighting against further industrial development along the river so that it may once again be recognized as natural.

15 Ibid.

16

Ibid.

17 Ibid.

17

A series of achievements in the new millennium, such as the development of the LA River Bikeway and Los Angeles State Historic Park are strong signals of a healthy movement.

The LA State historic park specifically, a story that will be explained in more detail in a later section, is exactly the type of development needed in Los Angeles. The LA River has experienced significant alteration, which has led to unfortunate blight, but the vacant lots that line its banks offer opportunities for renewal. The decline of industrial sites along the river may be the key to success as the city seeks to improve its disadvantaged neighborhoods. The brownfields left behind by the industrial era are some of the few vacant spaces available in Los Angeles and are therefore prime locations for parkland. Furthermore, the common adjacency of the brownfields to the LA River offers incredible potential to connect a system of parkland stemming from the San Fernando Valley down to the Pacific Ocean. As the city moves further, it ought to realize that the restoration of the LA River is the only project with the potential to regain Southern California’s natural beauty and breathe life back into the struggling communities initially injured by the river’s subjugation.

18

Building Urban Communities

(Rodger Young Village, 1946) The Los Angeles River has many areas of potential development that ought to reflect a matured understanding of urban design, community development, and ecosystem restoration.

The G2 parcel of Taylor Yard is currently up for sale by the Union Pacific Railroad and offers an excellent opportunity for redevelopment. Poor planning policy has adversely affected many Los Angeles communities, yet the Los Angeles River offers refuge to an era of discouraging decisions. Low-income communities, such as Cypress Park, have historically received high levels of industrial pollution, minimal green space, and political negligence. Though originally the zoning laws and urban planning theories were implemented to improve the lives of Los Angelenos, they have actually led to economic polarization, racial segregation, and community deterioration. Urban design theorists ought to be studied carefully as a means to understand how

19

past policies created blight in neighborhoods like Cypress Park as well as how sites like G2 can offer revitalization possibilities.

Significant literature has been published that provides excellent guidelines and arguments for how cities ought to develop as a means to support communities and ecosystems. Michael Dear and Steven Flusty published an article in 1998 titled “Postmodern Urbanism” that explains the transition from the modernist urban planning theory to the postmodern era where decentralization, deindustrialization, and reindustrialization have made a polycentric and polycultural urban network loosely connected by exclusive transit systems. Laura Pulido follows this article in 2000 with her own, titled “Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California”, where she traces the racial and economic segregation built into the culture and policies of Los Angeles during the major suburbanization boom after World War II. These articles laid the foundation for Dana Cuff to examine community development in her 2004 article “The Figure of the Neighbor: Los Angeles Past and Future” in which she examines how sociality can be enabled by particular environments. These investigations can be implemented into the urban planning theory developed by Jane Jacobs in her seminal 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Jacobs develops a groundbreaking framework for urban development that embraced diversity, community strength, and unslumming in cities. Finally, the American Planning Association released its latest urban planning analysis in the 2012 edition of Planning Los Angeles. This resource offers the most contemporary views and visions for Los Angeles urban development. These urban planning frameworks can be applied through socially conscious policy to rebuild the Northeast Los Angeles River corridor into a cultural and economic center in Los Angeles.

20

The first wave of urbanization in Los Angeles began after the arrival of the Transcontinental Railroad, but the most influential wave of urbanization came with the industrialization of automobile construction. Industrialization increased urban density in Downtown Los Angeles as factories necessitated more workers housing. Since there was seemingly unlimited space, there was little interest to build a city of high density like New York City. The rise of the automobile supported rapid horizontal expansion and its full potential was captured when the freeway system began to separate neighborhoods. Los Angeles development became one of the pioneer cities to expand extreme suburbanization for its rapidly expanding population.18 Dear and Flusty tracked development from the modernist era into the postmodern era, which hit its first major period expansion after World War II. Los Angeles developers no longer valued the megastructural bigness of eastern cities, the straight boulevard canyons, hardness and opacity, and epicentral business district.19 Instead, developers built a multiple nuclei city where land use was determined by social and economic history. Developers focused on providing every citizen with their own plot of land in zones of homogenous single-family homes. As a result, public green space was avoided as the backyard patio was embraced. The postmodern development signified a paradigm shift because while it was partially a physical restructuring of space, it was also a cultural restructuring wherein the people began to value their own separation as opposed to closeness. The lack of common space across the city prevented community interaction as it supported privatization. The city quickly became organized into a labyrinth of suburban communities connected only by roadways and divided along race and economic lines.

18 Dear, Michael, and Steven Flusty. "Postmodern Urbanism." Annals of the Association of American

Geographers 88.1 (1998): 50-­‐72. JSTOR. Web. <http://0-­‐www.jstor.org.oasys.lib.oxy.edu/stable/2563976>.

19 Ibid.

21

The postmodern form of urbanization is only fully understood when examined through the processes of capitalism and privatization.20 The extreme concern with privacy led to mass production of identical housing developments throughout all of Sothern California. These gated communities were made for those who had the financial means to escape the ails of the polluted Downtown Los Angeles area and neighborhoods like Cypress Park. The communities were clean and fortified so that the new residents would be blockaded from the depressed inner city Los Angeles. As a result, low-income communities were condensed and blight ensued, streets deteriorated, and crime prevailed, thus furthering the capitalist agenda to separate wealthy communities. Capitalists built a packaged product for new arrivals to Los Angeles, but the product was based on exclusivity and communities became racially segregated.

Laura Pulido dives deeper into the race theory behind the development of Los Angeles and reveals racist policies and social culture that created the segregated suburbanization.

Development policy and culture of city zoning in Los Angeles has shown very obvious borders along which lines of pollution and deterioration are directly correlated to boundaries between working class and affluent suburbs.21 Industrialization, decentralization, and residential segregation are the common themes of real estate development and postmodern culture that created the present day Los Angeles. Pulido’s article outlines the process of the segregation through white racism, which she defines as “those race practices and ideologies, carried out by structures, institutions, and individuals, that reproduce racial inequality and systematically undermine the well-being of racially subordinated populations”.22 The working class communities like Cypress Park were condensed into the spaces near industrial sectors and as a

20 Ibid.

21 Pulido, Laura. "Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90.1 (2000): 12-­‐40. JSTOR. Web. <http://0-­‐ www.jstor.org.oasys.lib.oxy.edu/stable/1515377>.

22 Ibid, 15.

22

result were more highly polluted and underserved with green spaces. The structures presented by Pulido can be either overt or subconscious, but always seek to preserve white values and status.

After World War II, suburbanization rapidly expanded through Southern California and real estate value was protected at all costs. This era was characterized by overt racism wherein the presence of people of color in the new suburban neighborhoods would greatly depreciate the value of the properties, neighborhood status, or level of comfort.23 The suburbs therein became a white privilege for those who could afford to move out of the polluted downtown districts and into safe, clean, and private suburbs. Meanwhile, working class communities remained near the factories in communities like Cypress Park. The cheapest housing was located within the perimeters of hazardous waste sites, such as the Los Angeles River. As the factories closed down or cheaper housing became available elsewhere, the some workers were able to move out of the city center. The newly available housing became the cheapest in the city and was subsequently occupied by people of color and the poor disproportionately from whites.

The early forms of residential segregation were largely controlled by the refusal of white people to live near immigrants, people of color, or low-income communities. The racial exclusivity of affluence led white people to whole-heartedly embrace suburbia.24 As the white populations moved out of the city, Latinos, African-Americans, Japanese Americans, Chinese Americans and other groups of color moved into the low income neighborhoods of Cypress Park and Highland Park among others. These social forces began shaping the city zoning laws so that industrial activity was restricted to the already polluted zones, which were only occupied by people of color. Racial segregation via real estate redlining became further institutionalized in the 1930’s through the Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Federal Housing Act. Redlining

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

23

instituted guidelines for neighborhoods to be graded according to quality. The affluent white neighborhoods received A’s and the low-income Black, Asian, and Latino communities were given D’s. These grades gave capitalist incentives to only develop suburbs and ignore lowincome communities because more profits were gained from the prestigious communities, thus real estate developers fought to maintain the homogeneity of the communities. Pulido states that it is only in the homogenous white spaces that whiteness can truly be exploited for the highest capital gains.

Overt racism declined in the 1980’s, but immigration led to the reinforcement and expansion of homogenous neighborhoods (Pulido, 2000). New immigrants in the 1980’s and 1990’s settled where they found similar culture and work. Economic constraints pushed the immigrant populations to settle next to industry in neighborhoods like Cypress Park. Large numbers of Latino populations have been hired at a time by new industrial complexes, which cause spikes in immigration to certain neighborhoods. Since these neighborhoods are located so close to industrial facilities, the communities face constant struggle with hazardous pollution.

As neighborhoods are created through a large array of social forces, thoughtful design can influence stronger community growth. Dana Cuff explores the role of the individual in the neighborhood and the significance of the design of a community in her 2004 article “The Figure of a Neighbor”. Through three case studies Cuff examines three development projects in postwar Los Angeles and the resulting community relations. She analyzes the concept of the neighbor, beginning with how one identifies with themselves and the greater community. She notes that the neighbor is an interesting identity because it is interactional wherein a person must be a neighbor in order to have one. A neighborhood collective is made up of individuals and is the most basic social interface between public and private life. The inter-neighbor relationship

24

can therefore be defined as self, stranger, other, friend or enemy, but ultimately the interaction between neighbors defines the culture of a region.

When suburbanization took control of Los Angeles, the form of the neighbor changed and the public interface was minimized so that the face of the neighbor became the façade of the house. A new identity rose and it was inscribed into the suburban dwellings.25 Many identical housing developments spread all across Southern California and the houses no longer expressed uniqueness of the occupants, but rather membership to a homogenous community. The dependency on the car allowed people to never walk in public space so that the only interaction between neighbors was driving by replicated house fronts lining every street. Cuff argues that the lack of public space hurts communities because there is no space for interaction. She vouches for the increase of public space because community interaction unifies the community and thereby opens the opportunity for community organizing. Therefore, public space can create the opportunity for communities to better themselves. The community design of Los Angeles not homogenized the identities of the occupants, but also prevented them from organizing themselves as a means to address their shared issues.

Public housing structures, however, have often been designed to centralize the shared community space as the primary community asset.26 The Boyle Heights Flats, for instance, was built in the early 20th century for low-income residents. The neighborhood was constantly in a state of deterioration due to lack of oversight from the government program. However, the community shared space at the elementary school and the Los Angeles River, where the social culture was able to grow. Cuff characterizes the community culture as pleasant and unified. This project was, however, demolished in 1942 due to the unlivable conditions and replaced by a new

25 Cuff, Dana. "The Figure of the Neighbor: Los Angeles Past and Future." American Quarterly 56.3 (2004): 26 Ibid.

559-­‐82. JSTOR. Web. <http://0-­‐www.jstor.org.oasys.lib.oxy.edu/stable/40068234>.

25

project called Aliso Village. This community had no property boundaries other than the walls of the home. Everything outside of the house, such as splash pools, walkways, clotheslines, and playgrounds were all shared space. Cuff believes that when given more shared space, the individual is cast as part of the collective. This self-identification with the larger group can have positive effects on community life because political indifference can lead to community decay.

Cuff believes that the availability of shared spaces gives communities more opportunity to interact and build their community in a positive direction.

Cuff’s third community case study is of the post-war community Rodger Young Village.

This community demonstrated incredible feats when given very little to start with.27 The housing was very cheap and temporary, meant to sustain the community until new houses were built in the suburbs. The community lacked major amenities like private space, telephones, and a market. However, the community either constructed or fought to gain these amenities. The community members developed a market, wired in telephones, and extended the duration of the program. The people of Rodger Young Village enjoyed their dense living space because they created a positive community atmosphere.

Finally, Cuff investigates the original development of the suburban community of Westchester during the housing boom. This space was purely single-family homes built under postmodern design theory.28 The only shared space was the street, which was dominated by cars.

Westchester embodied the vision of autopia. As a result, there was no neighbor interaction.

Without public space for pedestrians they rarely met or interacted. The house facade became the de-facto neighbor in the community as opposed to the individual.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

26

Cuff states that Westchester is not a positive mode of construction, but rather a catalyst in the demise of community strengths.29 Strong community relationships are built in public space and communities need accessible public space to make those relationships. Therefore the neighborhoods should not be designed to fulfill individualized interests, but rather the interests of the collective. There should be space in every community where the members may join together and talk about issues together so that they may have a chance in changing those problems.

Without developing space for neighbor-to-neighbor interaction there is no way for community development to occur or political change to result from that development. Therefore, when developing the G2 parcel of Taylor Yard, a specific focus on publicly accessibly space should be sought so that the surrounding neighborhood may have a space to organize themselves.

In 1961 Jane Jacobs wrote The Death and Life of Great American Cities as the counter argument to the massive waves of suburbanization across the nation. She rejected the theory of individualized and separated spaces for a type of urbanism that is mixed use, diverse, dense, and connected.30 She studied cities around the United States and highlighted where they have succeeded and failed. However, overall she felt that they have failed and a new era of urban design is required to reconnect and revitalize struggling communities. She began by exploring cities first hand and giving detailed accounts about the behavior in cities. Next, Jacobs made her main argument that poses diversity as the single most important aspect of a city. Finally, Jacobs recommended changes in housing, traffic, design, planning, and administrative practices that can appropriately manage the complexities in a city. Jane Jacobs best captured the poisonous ideology of suburbanization when she quoted Ebenezer Howard, a late 19th century urban planner, who states,

29 Ibid.

30 Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. [New York]: Random House, 1961. Print.

27

“The street is bad as an environment for humans; houses should be turned away from it and faced inward, toward sheltered greens. Frequent streets are wasteful, of advantage only to real estate speculators who measure value by the front foot. The basic unit of city design is not the street, but the block and more particularly the super-block. Commerce should be segregated from residences and greens. A neighborhood’s demand should be calculated ‘scientifically’, and this much and no more commercial space allocated. The presence of many other people is, at best, a necessary evil, and good city planning must aim for at least and illusion of isolation and suburban privacy”.31

Jacobs’s argument from therein in is an attack on this planning theory. The G2 parcel ought to reflect the values reflected in Jacobs’s work so that it can become a site full of community vibrancy, connectivity, and multi-use facilities. She systematically disproved the theory and built a new one directed towards community development and unity.

Jacobs begins her book with an investigation of the behaviors in the public spaces of a city. In this section of the book, she demonstrates how the sidewalks should be the core feature of residential life in a city.32 For the most part, sidewalks are unused either because of real danger, perceived danger, or a lack of attractions. The sidewalk holds a strong value within a city because of the high volume of social interactions that occur on them. City streets should be used more often because it builds strong community identities and promotes resident interaction.

People must be safe and feel safe on the sidewalk if they are going to use it. Therefore sidewalks need to be clearly marked as public space, have a system of law enforcement present, and carry heavy traffic. The best defense against danger is always the presence of others; crime occurs on empty streets. Attractions along streets are important because they increase traffic, which incidentally will further increase the amount of attractions. The development of the G2 parcel into a frequently visited pedestrian location can provide Jacobs’s desired vision. Overall, if designed correctly, the sidewalk can be the center of public life in a city.

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid.

28

The contact on the sidewalk can bring people together in casual, positive interactions.

Public space is generally the only place where two unacquainted people can interact with each other for a short period and then continue with their lives separately.33 The sidewalk can be the site of a conversation, an encounter, a spectacle, a fight, a kiss, and countless other interactions that cannot be experienced elsewhere. The public space offers the opportunity for many people who live in the same area, but do not know each other, to share experiences. It is this contact and sharing that is the very root of community identity development. The lack of public space available in Cypress Park could be improved by the development of the G2 parcel so that communities may interact naturally and grow positively. From childhood through adulthood, collective experience in public space is an indispensable asset of city life that should be preserved.

Diversity in a city is contingent upon several characteristics that produce communities with wide ranges of tastes, skills, needs, products, and culture. Diversity can be generated through multiple mixed primary uses, short blocks, buildings varying in age, and a dense concentration of people.34 As a means to create a high volume of traffic on city sidewalks, Jacobs argues that every street needs mixed primary uses. Streets should allow people to use the public space on different schedules and for different purposes. Short blocks make the city more navigable and therefore more desirable to use. The building or automobile space may be reduced by the addition of sidewalks, but the access to destinations increase and therefore usage increases. The varied age of buildings allows different qualities of rentable space for different tenants. Old buildings versus new buildings come with different amenities that will be desirable to different owners. However, the presence of only new buildings will be economically

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid.

29

exclusive for low-income people and a saturation of old or mildly dilapidated buildings will prevent wealthy residents from moving in. All of these features would be greatly supported by a dense concentration of people because by nature more diversity comes with higher numbers of people. The dense concentration of people would create the mixed uses, utilize the accessible streets, and occupy varied qualities of housing. Therefore, all four qualities are critical to generate diversity in a city; the loss of one can threaten the diversity of the city.

One of the single largest threats to urban health is the location of real and perceived borders that segment and segregate communities. These borders actively influence the form and function of cities and neighborhoods.35 Classic examples of borders in Los Angeles are railroad tracks, freeways, and the channelized, blocked off river. The zones directly surrounding the borders are disproportionately affected because of the contamination caused by the features.

Railroads, freeways, and rivers can each carry their own set of pollution and noise that drives off all those who can afford to move away. The space becomes the least desirable and the least expensive and thereby becomes occupied by the lowest-income communities. As a result, people cease to pass through the decaying neighborhoods because of either real or perceived safety and the border becomes a dead end. The LA River has often been seen as a border that is seldom crossed. However, if parks are developed along its banks, pathways for alternative transit and pedestrian bridges can unite the varying sides of Los Angeles. Border communities, like Cypress Park, are therefore critical in urban redevelopment because they have the ability to stitch together divided cities.

Reduced auto use is a key solution proposed by Jacobs to build the ideal city that she described. Automobile access to the city must be reduced as dependency on the automobile

35 Ibid.

30

reduces. A city cannot build a pedestrian exclusive area without reducing dependency on automobiles because it would require large amounts of parking and sprawl, which would defeat the purpose of the project. Jacobs recommends increased parkspace in areas that display pedestrian potential as well as an increase in the aesthetic beauty of a place. The pedestrians need space to individually use as they desire. A park is an excellent source of pedestrianexclusive space that will allow people to freely converse and express themselves. The car domination in Los Angeles is very preventative of pedestrian use and deteriorates the few pedestrian spaces that already exist. The G2 parcel is available for development and therefore should be developed to serve pedestrian needs as a means to address the negative effects brought upon by poor planning policy.

Urban planning theory continues expanding today, especially with the new edition of Planning Los Angeles published by the American Planning Association (APA). In 2012, the APA chose Los Angeles as their case study to compile analytical essays focused on the development of various sectors of the city.36 Several authors note that Los Angeles consists of a different type of landscape or urban ecology than most other United States cities. The multifocal landscape creates a non-linear experience for the visitor and resident. Los Angeles has no single uniting structure, which both fractures the city as well as gives space for uniqueness. The book’s editor, David Sloane, notes that Los Angeles was a place that “ruralized the city and urbanized the country- long before the freeway made spacious living possible”.37 The divisions between communities can have negative effects of wealth polarization and environmental quality disparity, but it also brings the city scale down to a more local level, which allows community members to connect in a more individualized identity. The G2 parcel of Taylor Yard provides the

36 Sloane, David Charles. Planning Los Angeles. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2012. Print.

37 Ibid, 5.

31

opportunity to uniquely connect the multi-focal city through a means other than freeways. A true parkway can be developed that provides alternative transit between individualized neighborhoods.

As several authors note, Los Angeles, however, has very little public space, which significantly impacts the modes of socialization.38 The focus on private space is the result of past planning ideals along with technological advancements such as the automobile. In terms of the Los Angeles River, the largest single guiding influence was precautionary flood control development. The river was channelized out of fear for the “100 year flood”, which gave the Army Corps the utmost authority to pave as much as was felt necessary. Since so many houses were irresponsibly developed in the flood plain, significant flood control tactics were taken to protect the property. As a result, the LA River was developed with an extremely precautionary approach and essentially the maximum amount of concrete foundation. However, the LA River still has potential to be redeveloped into green space and once again provide nature in the city.

The APA makes a strong case for the necessity of open green spaces in Los Angeles, of which it currently has very few. In comparison with other cities, Los Angeles has 6.2 acres of parkland per 1000 residents, San Diego has 36.1, and Portland has 24.2; meanwhile, the national standards recommend up to 10 acres. Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, argues the importance of parks in her essay when she states, “Parks offer visual and psychological relief in high-pace urban communities and contribute to the quality of life and overall sense of well-being of urban dwellers. Parks can also serve as a substitute for nature in cities, offering important environmental benefits. Their trees and vegetation reduce ambient heat levels and offer sequestration of air pollution, while their “softscape” allows natural water filtration and absorbs runoff… Additionally, parks are considered important settings for the social and cognitive development for young children… and for the physical activity of children and adults”.39

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid, 192

32

The positive effects of parks are endless and are therefore crucial to community development.

The lack of parks in Los Angeles signifies a lack of foresight for community development.

Interaction with neighbors, physical activity, and environmental rehabilitation are critical for Los Angeles as it moves into the future. Additionally, the parkland is not evenly distributed throughout the city; Latino neighborhoods have 1.6 acres per 1000 residents, African American neighborhoods have only 0.8 acres, Asian-American neighborhoods have 1.2 acres, and whitedominated neighborhoods enjoy 17.4 acres.

The existence of parkland is not always sufficient to make the park successful; parks must be accessible, safe, and offer appropriate programs and facilities. A survey administered to 897 children and 348 parents in 12 Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) middle schools found that the children primarily do not visit parks for reasons such as lack of time, lack of interest, negative perceptions about the park, availability of other alternatives for recreation, and challenges of accessibility. Good parks need to be made for people to use them and many different concerns need to be taken into account. One element, often overlooked, is the underrepresentation of girls in parks. Parents are typically more reluctant to leave girls alone parks, teenage girls are more prone to sedentary lifestyles, and supervised programs may be disproportionately geared toward males. As a result, serious consideration about how to equally support females and people of color in an urban setting needs to be taken into account when developing new parks.40 Los Angeles evolved rapidly from a series of technological advancement and urban planning paradigm shifts; however, the city needs to rethink how it wants to approach planning in the future. Poor planning decisions led to polarization of wealth, segregation of races, and the

40 Ibid.

33

isolation of communities into specific regions. People of color and the poor have been systematically disadvantaged through the urban planning decisions and currently faced significant adversity as a result. Los Angeles needs to strike a new path in its urban planning policy to create a more equitable city. By developing the G2 parcel into parkland, the city can target Cypress Park as a disadvantaged neighborhood and give them meaningful community assets. The Los Angeles River offers huge potential for green space development along with widespread connectivity from the San Fernando Valley to the Pacific Ocean. The brownfields adjacent to the LA River are ideal locations to develop parkland and reduce community blight.

Â

34 Â

Barriers to Redevelopment along the Los Angeles River

(Rio de Los Angeles Park, G2 Parcel, and Los Angeles River, 2010)

The Los Angeles River is adjacent to many vacant wastelands with high potential for redevelopment. These wastelands, or brownfields, are spaces either abandoned or neglected by industrial facilities after downsizing or shutdowns. Old rail yards such as Taylor Yard in Cypress Park offer up to 250 acres of unused space inside an intensely urban area. Brownfields are often highly contaminated from past usage, but offer potential to redevelop a blighted neighborhood and increase urban density. Elizabeth Collaton and Charles Bartsch define the brownfield, its need for redevelopment, and the barriers to that development in their 1996 report “Industrial Site Reuse and Urban Development- An Overview”. The Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) analyzed two different types of development

35

projects in their 2000 report “Redeveloping Obsolete Industrial Land with Modern Manufacturing Facilities: The Job, The Wage, and Tax Implications for State and Local Government”, which revealed differences in the political barriers faced by developers.

Additionally, Kris Wernstedt, Peter B. Meyer, and Anna Alberini examined why these barriers prevent development by surveying a large sample of developers and analyzing the data in their 2006 article “Private Investment to Contaminated Properties: The Value of Public Interventions”.

Yet, the best example of the process of brownfield development can be seen in a history of the development of the Cornfield, a former brownfield in Chinatown, given by Robert Gottlieb.

These texts offer varying insight to the barriers and potentials that brownfields can offer.

Brownfields are excellent sites for redevelopment because of the various opportunities they present. Redevelopment can restore jobs, rehabilitate derelict neighborhoods, and reduce sprawl. Brownfields are generally located in areas of economic blight and therefore the rehabilitation targets the communities most in need.41 Abandoned sites hurt the local tax base and become sites of vandalism, robbery, and substance abuse. Furthermore, pollution worsens over time and neglected sites become increasing burdens for communities. In Los Angeles, the decline of industry around the river has left many brownfields in the corridor.

Brownfields can be redeveloped with parks, retail stores, housing or factories, all of which benefit the community in different ways.42 Brownfield redevelopment increases density in cities by using space more efficiently. Industrial districts can often be near full development, but brownfields are open to all development. Redevelopment within the city prevents companies from developing on the borders of the city, which creates sprawl. The development of

41 Collaton, Elizabeth. "Industrial Site Reuse and Urban Redevelopment—An Overview." Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 2.3 (1996): 17-­‐61. JSTOR. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20868420>.

42 Ibid.

36

brownfields creates a positive community response because as the deteriorated buildings rebuild, the value of all surrounding land also increases. The increase in value of the land can improve an entire neighborhood and bring many communities out of blight.

However, the contamination of the sites can stop many development projects before they begin. Liability laws established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) have made redevelopment safer, but also more difficult.43 CERCLA is an important policy tool to evaluate present levels of contamination, hold present and past owners liable for any contamination that is on the property, and set the decontamination standards before a property sale. It is important to note that although a site may not be found on the CERCLA list, it can still be classified as a lesser-contaminated brownfield.

The owners of contaminated sites are often discouraged from selling the site because of the financial repercussions they could face. CERCLA also holds lenders liable for contamination on a site and thereby reduces the amount of loans developers can receive. By holding lenders liable the investment becomes riskier and the value of the collateral reduces. Projects have therefore become more difficult to achieve and less common.

Tax structures can also deter certain types of brownfield development. The LAEDC found that even when long-term gains from development projects outweigh the short-term gains, the city might opt for the short-term option.44 For example, a brownfield can be developed into retail or manufacturing jobs, which will differently distribute the revenue across the city and state. The city always prefers retail development because of the increase in sales tax revenue.

However, a factory development would create higher paying jobs than a retail development and

43 Ibid.

44 Freeman, Gregory, and Ken Ackbarali. Redeveloping Obsolete Industrial Land with Modern Manufacturing Facilities: The Job, Wage and Tax Implications for State and Local Government. Publication. N.p.: Los Angeles County Economic Development Coporation, 2000. Print.

37

better improve community standards. The problem is that the city will receive very little tax revenue from the manufacturing development. As a result, sometimes cities will push against the manufacturing development and favor the retail development, even if it is a worse option for the citizens. In other words, the citizens may benefit more from a manufacturing development, however, due to the marginal levels of revenue gained through manufacturing, the city often opts for retail development. This study cites the Commerce Citadel as a good example where many types of development could have occurred, but the city favored retail as a means to capture revenue. LAEDC also states that the city ought to have a more holistic view while developing sites rather than focus on short-term gains.

Wernstedt, Meyer, and Alberini investigated the effects of these barriers by surveying developer opinions. They mailed a survey to nearly 3000 developers with questions concerning value of clean-up costs, public involvement requirements, availability of subsidies, and the overall desirability of developing contaminated sites.45 They found that nearly all of the developers were very concerned about clean-up requirements when beginning projects. The developers also voiced concern about finding unknown contamination after a project has begun.

The majority of developers were against including a public involvement requirement, most likely due to the additional time it requires. However, nearly half of the developers also said that when they are forced to include public opinion, it is always beneficial to the project. These seemingly contradictory responses show that the public can either be an asset or an obstacle for project development. Overall, the investigators seemed most responsive to the possibilities of more subsidies. The availability of more subsidies as well as liability protections make development more likely for contamination clean up.

45 Wernstedt, Kris, Peter B. Meyer, and Anna Alberini. "Attracting Private Investment to Contaminated

Properties: The Value of Public Interventions." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25.2 (2006): 247-­‐ 369. Print.

38

The Cornfield, now called the Los Angeles State Historic Park, was a former brownfield owned by the Union Pacific and was converted into a park. The Cornfield shows the ideal scenario for brownfield development because the community, corporations, city, and state all combined efforts, negotiated, and compromised to build a new community asset. However, the battle to build the park was difficult and reflects many of the barriers that future brownfield development will also face.

The fight to develop a park in the Cornfield revealed a huge renewed advocacy for LA River revitalization.46 Coordination between FoLAR, the Urban and Environmental Policy Institute (UEPI), and Chinatown community organizations helped build a campaign against the Union Pacific Railroad’s intention to develop the space for industrial usage. Majestic Realty, a large private land developer, had organized a deal with Union Pacific to build warehouses and light industry on the Cornfield site. Additionally, Majestic Realty had strong connections with LA mayor Richard Riordan, giving them larger political power for development permitting.

However, the fight for the Cornfield quickly became a heated debate over how Los Angeles should be developing its limited vacant space. The Re-Envisioning the LA River program provided one connection to advocacy work that significantly expanded in the next several years.

The program kicked off the founding of the Urban and Environmental Policy Institute of Occidental College with a series of lectures, forums, activities, and research projects focused on reexamining how the city views the river and how it can be reengineered. The program united academic facilities with community action as a means to optimally address the issues surrounding the river. From that point on the LA River became a legitimate academic pursuit and a progressive form of learning by doing.

46 Gottlieb, Robert. Reinventing Los Angeles: Nature and Community in the Global City. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2007. Print.

39

The LA mayoral debate in September 2000, the final event in the yearlong Reenvisioning the LA River program, along with the changing political climate in Los Angeles, provided the space for LA River advocacy to gain strong momentum and ultimate victory.47 Mayoral candidates were forced to pick sides on the Cornfield issue and it soon became clear that LA River advocates comprised an important constituency capable of influencing the issue debates in the race. The presence of the LA River within the mayoral debate led to further growth of the movement and more attention from larger stakeholders. Following the mayoral debates, negotiations began between officials of the state of California and Union Pacific about the price and conditions of sale for the Cornfield site. In 2001, a deal for the sale of Cornfield and its development into a park was made along with a deal the following year to develop a portion of Taylor Yard into a park as well.

These two acquisitions were critical to LA River revitalization because they set precedent for the purchase of brownfields and their conversion into public open space. Though the stakeholders faced controversy when competing with private investment and strong political ties, ultimately the community overcame the powers and built new community assets.

Since the Cornfield development, a regional Master Plan was developed to guide future Los Angeles River development. This plan was developed by the LA Bureau of Engineers as a means to assess the current status and functions of the river as well as decide potential uses and methods of development. The Master Plan highlights six main criteria for development; they are 1) Aesthetics, 2) Economic Development, 3) Environmental Quality, 4) Flood Management and Water Conservation, 5) Jurisdiction and Public Involvement, and 6) Recreation.48 The Master Plan also contains in depth analysis of the processes of implementation as well as specific site

47 Ibid.

48 United States of America. City of Los Angeles. Los Angeles River Master Plan. N.p, 2007. Print.

40

locations for a large number of projects. Overall this comprehensive plan addresses many concerns surrounding the LA River and offers solutions.

The key themes found in the Los Angeles River Master Plan dictate how government agencies of Los Angeles will be moving forward with the redevelopment of the LA River.

Overarching themes within the noted development criteria include the focus on open space, community connectivity, large scope projects, and economic development.49 The Master Plan recommends development of the LA River because of the potential to rebuild the struggling communities that are surrounding it. By opening the LA River to tourism, pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-auto transit the city can increase its low levels of park space as well as traffic through local business.

Taylor Yard offers many opportunities for river restoration and park development along the Los Angeles River, but much of it is currently highly contaminated with toxic chemicals left from former industrial usage. Parcel G2 of Taylor Yard sits closest to the LA River and is currently owned by the Union Pacific Railroad; however, it also remains unused. Parcel D was developed in 2002 into the Rio de Los Angeles State Park, but is blocked access to Parcel G2 along with the river by a railroad track.50 The development of Parcel G2 would connect the Rio de Los Angeles State Park to the LA River, thus giving Cypress Park drastically increased access to other parts of Los Angeles and vice versa.

High levels of contamination were determined to exist in Parcel G2 in the 2002 study, “Taylor Yard Multiple Objective Feasibility Study”, prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy.51 This study assessed the types of chemicals present in the site, their volume

49 Ibid.

50 Taylor Yard Multiple Objective Feasibility Study. Publication. Los Angeles: California State Coastal 51 Ibid.

Conservancy, 2002. Print.

41

present in the soil, and the cost requirements for decontamination of varying standards. The study found that hydrocarbons, semi-volatile organic compounds, volatile organic compounds, and metals were present in the soil at unsafe levels for human contact. Through an analysis of several methods of decontamination, the study concludes that bio-remediation, minor excavation, and disposal of contaminated soil should be undertaken. Clean up would create only recreational facilities and not be available for ecosystem restoration nor emergency flood storage. The project would cost between 60-170 million dollars depending on the extent of contaminated soil and is the least expensive method of clean up evaluated. In the recommended method of clean up, the land would be placed into public ownership and from there could be subject to further development based on desires of the citizens. This study, however, does not note any specific sources of funding, but rather highlights how it could be done from various viewpoints. The comprehensive study makes good estimations for the costs of clean up and offers all LA River advocates a good base to work from.

Brownfield development is ideal for the creation of parkland because the space is unused and otherwise adds to the community’s blight. The lack of parkland in Los Angeles further underlines the value of such development. However, brownfields are very difficult to develop due to the contamination and amount of clean up necessary to make the sites safe for human use.

The Cornfield’s development into the Los Angeles State Historic Park offers a hopeful view into the possibility of more brownfield developments. The G2 parcel of Taylor Yard is crucial for LA River revitalization because it can unlock access to North East Los Angeles as well as be a source of insight for future development. There is no other site like Parcel G2 in Los Angeles with such a large amount of vacant space along the river. If Los Angeles is committed to

42

increasing the amount of parkland in its disadvantaged communities, then Parcel G2 must be developed to serve those needs.

Â

43 Â

Findings

Taylor Yard has a long history related to the development of Los Angeles. Originally home to the Tongva Native Americans, it also became the epicenter of Los Angeles’s first population boom, and various industrial developments. The yard has been a core component to the founding of Los Angeles and has been subject to many of the unique urban planning trends that the city pioneered. After agriculture gave way to housing and industry, the land was subdivided into separate parcels and reappropriated for a new economy. J. Hartley Taylor, who gave the site its current name, constructed an oat and barley milling plant, which brought Taylor Yard its first industrial development. In the 1920’s, the site was purchased by the Southern Pacific Railroad to facilitate the expansion of the railroads and was accompanied by similar expansions of machine shops and other factories. The site was heavily used as a freight-­‐switching yard for several decades and at times employed three-­‐fourths of the surrounding neighborhood. However, the demand for railroads began to drop and the site closed in 1985, resulting in the loss of several hundred jobs and a large vacant space. Since that time Taylor Yard has laid fallow, gathering waste and disconnecting the surrounding communities from the LA River.

44

(Subdivision in Taylor Yard)

The Taylor Yard site offers diverse potentials for community revitalization and connectivity to the LA River. The entire yard is 244 acres, 62 acres of which are still in active use by the Union Pacific Railroad, 40 acres of developed park, and the remainder contaminated land. The most optimal parcel for development in the site is referred to as the G2 parcel and consists of 44 acres. This parcel is particularly important because it lies adjacent to the LA River. The Rio de Los Angeles Park was developed in 2005 and while it is a major community asset, it falls short of providing connectivity to the LA River.

Connectivity to the LA River is important because it can create access to large portions of the city. If access to the river were more available to the public, then there would also be connection between all of the communities that lie along the river. As examined earlier, Los Angeles has a long history of dividing the communities by focusing on privatization and personal space; however, the LA River provides an alternative. By developing the G2 parcel of Taylor Yard, access to the LA River can be opened across a very large space, provide additional green space to an underserved community, and create a public commons for community development.

The development potentials of G2 parcel is no secret to LA River activists. Non-­‐ profits, government agencies, and for-­‐profit corporations are all stakeholders in a long debate that is approaching major decisions in the near future. Most of the stakeholders

45

agree with the LA River Master Plan’s suggested development of the G2 parcel. This investigation interviewed seven of the most involved stakeholders all of whom share critical positions in the expanding development along the Los Angeles River. Friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR), directed by river pioneer Lewis MacAdams, is a particularly influential group due to their involvement in the conception of LA River activism. The River Project, directed by Melanie Winter, sprouted from FoLAR as a means to expand the breadth and mobility of LA River Activism and focused significantly on the Taylor Yard site.

The Los Angeles River Revitalization Corporation, directed by Omar Brownson, was created per mandate of the LA River master Plan; their primary focus is to implement the recommendations of the Master Plan. The Army Corps of Engineers, with Josephine Axt as Chief of Planning, is responsible for the channelization of the LA River and therefore holds primary jurisdiction on all LA River redevelopment. The LA Bureau of Engineering, with Carol Armstrong as project manager of the LA River development department, created the Master Plan and continues to strategize and implement the desired revitalization projects.

Trammell-­‐Crow Company, with senior manager Brad Cox, is a development agency working with the Union Pacific Railroad to develop the land; Trammel-­‐Crow offers a different view regarding the development potentials recommended by the Master Plan.

There is strong consensus between many of the stakeholders as to how the space should be developed, Trammel Crow being the one exception. Undoubtedly, however, the G2 parcel is an extremely valuable piece of land that will be seeing some type of development in the next few years.

The general consensus between the non-­‐profits and government agencies is that the G2 parcel ought to be redeveloped with ecosystem restoration. The replacement of

46

riparian vegetation and reimplementation of the flood plain is the desired outcome for the parcel. The surrounding communities of Cypress Park, Glassell Park, and other nearby neighborhoods severely lack green space and the G2 parcel could greatly improve that deficiency. Ecosystem restoration of G2 would improve the permeation of rain and floodwaters into the groundwater basin. The G2 parcel is one of the very few spaces where ecosystem restoration of such a large extent is even possible. As a means to improve the community, Omar Brownson said that the G2 parcel is the “crown jewel” of the LA River revitalization.52 The process of development is very complex, however, and there are varying interests within the general consensus.

The River Project would like to see more extensive flood plain restoration than dictated by the Master Plan. Melanie Winter, the organization’s acting director, believes that environmental justice is owed to the surrounding communities and the only means of providing it is by restoring the flood plain to its original state. In an interview, she stated, “In terms of [environmental justice] the most important aspects are clean air and clean water. Any profits that get in the way undermine the cause”.53 The goal of the flood plain restoration would be to recharge the groundwater, which is currently very depleted and would create a larger local water supply. Most of Los Angeles’s water supplies travel hundreds of miles to reach the city and this system creates a lot of waste that could be saved for a local water supply.

52 "Interview with Omar Brownson." Personal interview. 31 Jan. 2013.

53 "Interview with Melanie Winter." Personal interview. 15 Dec. 2012.

47

The figure above notes the origins of the water used in Los Angeles. 54 The majority of water that comes from the Metropolitan Water District and the Los Angeles aqueduct travels an average of about 350 miles to reach the city. The depletion of groundwater is a result of overuse and well contamination. Los Angeles has struggled with local groundwater depletion since the turn of the century brought in large waves of immigration.

The groundwater continues to deplete today, however, furthering Los Angeles’s dependency on foreign sources.

There are, however, buildings currently within the reaches of the flood plain.

Winter suggests that the government offer a buy-­‐back program to any person owning a house within the flood zone so that all surrounding land may be acquired and reappropriated as a flood plain. At the same time, Winter suggests that significant grey-­‐ water infrastructural changes should be made to reclaim lightly used water. G2 is a perfect

54 United States of America. Department of Water and Power. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Securing L.A.'s

Water Supply. Los Angeles: n.p., 2008. Print.

48

location to begin flood plain restoration, which is where Winter agrees with other stakeholders.

As for FoLAR, LARRC, the Bureau of Engineers, and Army Corps, the Master Plan is a solid foundation for LA River revitalization and should be carried out as already deemed appropriate. The Master Plan calls for decontamination of the toxic soil and groundwater along with ecosystem restoration in Taylor Yard. There is significant decontamination that must occur to the site, but the exact extent of that contamination is still unknown. In an interview with Carol Armstrong, she stated that she believed the Master Plan is a good fit for Los Angeles because it was custom made for the city. She described how LA is different from other cities in the Midwest and eastern states and that brownfield solutions are always unique to the location. Her experience comes from work she performed in Southeast Asia regarding brownfield development. When she arrived the government suggested that she apply the same methods for flood control she had used in the United States. However, she soon found that these solutions where not viable due to differences in community and ecology. She strongly supports community-­‐based urban development. It has been difficult to sell or develop Taylor Yard so far because of its known extensive soil and groundwater contamination. Regardless of how it will be realized, the Master Plan is certainly a thorough analysis of what the LA River can offer and many stakeholders are in grand support of the projects.

The Union Pacific Railroad is not legally bound to the Master Plan and therefore has little interest in following its guidelines. There is minimal profitability in ecosystem restoration and it is therefore not observed as an option. Union Pacific has been working out a purchase agreement with the development agency, Trammell-­‐Crow, so that they may

49

develop and market the site. In an interview with Brad Cox, he expressed that his company was expecting to develop light industry on the site. He would like to see warehouses or offices put into the space because less soil clean up is necessary and the investment can be recaptured through future on-­‐site production. Trammell-­‐Crow is experiencing pressure from the city and surrounding communities to make the site into a park, but must balance the economic viability of the scenario. Cox stated that he supports connectivity to the LA River and would like to provide access to the river, but the main priority is profitability.

For G2 in particular, the soil and groundwater contamination are the major preventative challenges to the redevelopment. The feasibility study in 2002 stated that clean up could take between 50-­‐160 million dollars, depending on the standard of clean up desired. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) sets the standards of acceptable pollution and has mandated a much higher standard for parks and housing than for industrial usage. Since people, especially children, will be playing in the dirt, it must be extremely toxin-­‐free to be a safe area. The simplest method for soil decontamination is that for industrial usage where the top 30 feet of soil are removed, a concrete “cap” is laid down, and new soil is replaced on top. Though relatively inexpensive, this method of decontamination is not a high enough standard for park usage or ecosystem restoration.

The site is still owned by the Union Pacific because nobody has the money to clean up the soil, which would be required either before or after the purchase of the site.

Bioremediation is another tactic for soil and groundwater decontamination and is much less expensive than other options. By using organic compounds the toxins are broken down into safe forms, however, bioremediation is a very long process and is therefore less

50

desirable. Moving forward, the Army Corps is performing a very comprehensive study that measures the exact level of contamination and offers clean up strategies.

The Army Corps feasibility study is the critical component to LA River revitalization because it offers the best options for clean-­‐up. So far, the study has taken 7 years and cost 10 million dollars, but is nearing its completion. Josephine Axt was very excited for the release of the document because it opens up major federal funding opportunities that have never been available before. The scope of this study brings the intentions of the Master Plan to the next level of possibility. The Army Corps has three priorities: 1) flood risk management, 2) navigability, and 3) ecosystem restoration. The organization resides within the Civil Works Program and may present the findings of the study to Congress to apply for construction funding. Axt believes that the study will help connect all of the pieces in the Master Plan; she stated “all the little things have value, but if you connect them…you really ramp up the benefits, [both for] habitat and for people”.55 Axt was unable to release any specifics of the document, but was able to say that the alternatives contain the removal of the concrete, especially around Taylor Yard. Axt was in support of ecosystem restoration in the G2 parcel and stated that the study absolutely describes that space is an optimal location for the restoration. Though not all of the concrete can be removed, some entire sections may be eliminated as flood management is improved in other areas.

Every group involved is waiting in anticipation for the release of the Army Corps study because it will dictate how everyone will proceed with any development along the river. Carol Armstrong described the study as the breakthrough necessary to move the LA

55 "Interview with Josephine Axt." Personal interview. 25 Feb. 2013.

51

Revitalization forward.56 Lewis MacAdams agreed that LA River development is completely dependent on the outcome of the study and little can be done in the way of development before the release of the study.57 According to Omar Brownson, though clean-­‐up has already begun, it is unclear to what extent it will be or ought to be completed.58 The study is by far the most comprehensive study that has ever been conducted on the LA River and therefore will dictate the current situation of the river.

Though many groups want to redevelop the river, the study is needed to explain what is necessary for that clean up. The levels of toxins will be released along with the necessary levels of decontamination for different types of clean up. Lastly, the study will offer the different methods of clean up that the various organizations should utilize to achieve their redevelopment goals. The Army Corps study will completely change the atmosphere around LA River development and clarify the necessary steps to its revitalization.

Regardless of the specifics of the Army Corps study, development will occur along the LA River and it is critical to keep the community involved throughout the process.

Armstrong spoke extensively about the importance of community involvement in the process because she felt that “people feel divorced from what happens to the land in their neighborhoods”.59 In addition, she stated that, “you get really positive urban change when you get the residents involved in that change”.60 FoLAR has seen an increase in community involvement from philanthropists. Involvement in activism surrounding the river has steadily increased through the past several decades, but as of the last few years there has

56 "Interview With Carol Armstrong." Personal interview. 4 Feb. 2013.

57 "Interview with Lewis MacAdams." Telephone interview. 18 Jan. 2013.

58 "Interview with Omar Brownson." Personal interview. 31 Jan. 2013.

59 "Interview With Carol Armstrong." Personal interview. 4 Feb. 2013.

60 Ibid.

52

been a spike in private donations. MacAdams stated that this increase in private donations has been from Los Angelenos and various businesses that want to see their communities improved.61 This increase in private funding has occurred as government funding has seen a drop. Armstrong stated that the government was hoping that this process would occur and that all members of the community would begin to take ownership of their city.62 This could note a changing paradigm for the Los Angeles River as the government decreases its involvement in public works as communities and individuals find the means to succeed themselves.

Community members have conflicting visions on how the space ought to be redeveloped. To be specific, through participant observation, the G2 parcel site was visited and existing users were found. From a distance, the parcel appears vacant and desolate, however, upon closer examination community residents were found to be using the space.

One resident, a young man carrying a spray paint can and a skateboard, stated that he used the space to skateboard and paint. He expressed how this space was the only one he had to perform such activities. When he was asked what he would like to see from the space, he stated that he does not want it to change at all. He felt that this was the last space around where he could enjoy such freedoms that come from skateboarding and spray painting; in other areas the often-­‐illicit activities are barred from the community. Two other men were approached in the site while they were collecting debris that they would later recycle for cash. Those men visited the site to collect the recyclable scrap metal and also stored some tools necessary for that trash removal. Both of these men stated that they would rather have a park in the site so that they could bring their families. Another group of individuals

61 "Interview with Lewis MacAdams." Telephone interview. 18 Jan. 2013.

62 "Interview With Carol Armstrong." Personal interview. 4 Feb. 2013.

53

was observed at a distance using large pits as jumps for dirt bikes. They were unable to be approached, but showed another usage of the site. The existence of current usage of the site greatly changes the approach that the community organizations ought to use for development. None of these residents were aware of the potential redevelopment projects for the space but all had opinions on the matter. It can be inferred that with any type of development there will be compromise between community residents. These community members were generally pessimistic by the idea of park development due to their past experiences. A community based and transparent development process would include all community member opinions in order to build consensus for park development. A comprehensive plan needs to include these members of the community as well as those who view the space as abandoned and useless.

The process of development of the G2 parcel can effectively include the community members by strategically reaching out to the different residents. Carol Armstrong believes that increased transparency, educational features, and artistic construction can greatly increase the amount of community involvement in the project.63 Increased transparency will help involve more residents because an understanding of the obstacles will allow them to volunteer any of their abilities that may help. The educational features are important because there are complex technical and political issues related to the clean-­‐up. If the residents understand what is happening in their community, then they will have the ability to take ownership of the process. Lastly, the large machines necessary to decontaminate the soil can be made artistically beautiful so that they will draw attention to the project.

There can also be large signs with information about the project to inform the viewer of

63 Ibid.

54

what is happening and what will become of the site. Community outreach will be critical as the site becomes developed so that it can reflect the necessary interests in the community.

There are many moving parts as the redevelopment of the LA River unfolds that will need to be navigated in order to make the best decision. As a whole, the various parties involved want the land to be developed because it is an underutilized asset. While some people want to see profits related to its development, others want to see community beautification and development. The single critical component to future development will be the release of the Army Corps study, which will dictate the necessary components to the redevelopment projects. The Master Plan is generally agreed to be a good goal within the activist communities, but needs to have a strong focus on connectivity between the various projects along the river. However, as development projects proceed it is important that the existing uses of the site are taken into consideration. There will be voices in the community that will be overlooked and it is everybody’s responsibility to perform extensive community outreach to reach a consensus on how the park ought to be developed. Therefore the agreed upon development should have good transparency and educational components. The use of artistic works as part of the clean-­‐up and development process would be a good way to draw in residents to teach them about development opportunities. Carol Armstrong described the LA River as “our monument” and the only piece of natural infrastructure that can connect all the communities between the San Fernando Valley and the Pacific Ocean.64 The G2 parcel is one of the very few large open spaces in Los Angeles and its location on the LA River lends it to even greater potential benefits through its connectivity.

64 Ibid.

55

56

Recommendations

The development of the LA River is currently moving along a very positive

trajectory and will hopefully take into account several more recommendations related to its future development. The LA River Master Plan has great intentions for the future development along the river and is a great guide for all river projects. Specifically, the focus on ecosystem restoration and community connectivity are critical characteristics to river restoration. In addition, it would greatly benefit the community to make the park artistically beautiful so as to attract visitors from around the city. Other cities have developed unused industrial space into beautiful parks that have received global recognition. However, the community must be included at every step of development along the river. The projects should only occur if all residents have been consulted and unanimously consented to development projects. However, though these visions are optimal for the space, there is an unfortunate drought of available government funds for projects such as park development and it is unlikely that the G2 parcel will be developed within the next several years. In that case, there are short-­‐term projects that can call attention to the space, beautify the community, and educate the community about the potential uses of the site. A large sculpture, similar to the effect of the Watts Towers, would be a very valuable addition to the G2 parcel for all of the aforementioned reasons. As a means to mobilize the public around the LA River development, art displays are great ways to gain attention. The raised attention can be aimed at politicians and government entities to demand more support for green space in Los Angeles.

57

(Photo rendering of LA River Master Plan)

The Master Plan is a good framework for LA River development because of its

incorporation of ecosystem restoration and community based focus. Los Angeles is starved for green space and has experienced extreme environmental destruction throughout the past century. The Master Plan is supported by all city, state, and federal government entities and therefore holds great of influence over the future development of the river.

The plan is very strong in its focus and project specificity. The river would be greatly improved if the Master Plan were executed as dictated. There are very strong leaders directing the leading LA River groups, which offer a lot of hope for the future. Josephine Axt, Chief of Planning of the Army Corps of Engineers, and Carol Armstrong, Planning Director in the LA Bureau of Engineering, are two extremely capable, experienced, and qualified women whom hold two of the most influential positions in LA River revitalization.

As for non-­‐profits, Lewis MacAdams initiated and built the river advocacy movement since the 1980’s and has been essential in the formation of today’s river activism. The

58

organizations that these groups run have very conscious and thoughtful employees with great visions for the LA River.

The Army Corps feasibility study will be the critical component in LA River

development. Any development along the river will need to wait for the completion of the Army Corps study. This investigation is the most thorough examination the LA River to date and will offer the most effective means of development. The final stages of the study will be informed by community participation and therefore should reflect community needs and desires. The depth of the study makes it a very good resource for all future development and should be regarded as the reference document for all LA River development.

It will be absolutely essential to involve the community throughout every portion of

LA River development. The projects are only valuable insofar as they align with the community’s mission. Many of the neighborhoods that line the river have already been consulted through various past projects throughout the years, which bodes very well for future restoration. That being said, continued community involvement is an ongoing commitment that must be adhered to in order for the developments to be successful. If projects are executed without community support, it will further disconnect the community from the surrounding urban space. The best way to develop any site is with full community support and involvement so that the project may best embody the community’s neighborhood vision.

There are members of the community already using the G2 parcel illegally, but must

be taken into serious consideration when redeveloping the site. While the site currently offers little value in terms of larger community benefit, it greatly benefits a select few

59

citizens. There was a young man approached in the G2 site while he was spray painting.

He stated that this was the only place that he could come to freely paint without the danger of arrest. Upon further investigation, the site had several significant areas of large mural paintings upon old foundations. Artistic space can be very hard to come by, especially when using media such as spray paint, to displace these local artists would be to oppress the artistic freedom.

(Graffiti site in the G2 parcel) There is enough space in the site to both build a park as well as offer space for artistic endeavors. The large concrete walls ought to be kept as they are and left open for artistic use. The walls can be surrounded by ecosystem restoration, but simultaneously offer a unique artistic space for the community members who are already using it as such or who would us it as such if it were made more accessible. Community arts should be embraced throughout the entire development of the G2 parcel and other similar art spaces could be created. The retention of many of the existing concrete foundations or structures

60

can offer an interesting preservation of a historic site while also allowing the modern era to reappropriate it as desired.

The underrepresentation of girls in the current parks is frightening and should be a top priority for future park development. A male-­‐dominated park represents a failure to support the entire community. Women are traditionally unrepresented in political and economic spheres and must be especially supported during all new projects. Research ought to be conducted before park development occurs that surveys what would bring girls into parks. The research should develop alternative models for development of the park that specifically targets girls as the desired demographic. The lack of girls in parks is often connected to safety concerns in the community, which is the result of larger systemic issues in the neighborhoods. Loukaitou-­‐Sideris’s essay conducted research to the causes of female underrepresentation and should be referred to as a guide for development. She recommends that attention to surveillance and policing of the site should be taken carefully as to support healthy activity without militarizing the area. Additionally, after school sports and arts programs should be offered that target girls as much as boys in the area, but which are very sensitive to historically masculine-­‐dominative tendencies. The underrepresentation of girls in other parks across Los Angeles means that this park ought to be especially targeted at girls’ needs as to add equity to park space in the city.

Bridges are another aspect to the development of G2 that will be critical to connectivity to the LA River. There must be at least two pedestrian bridges on the site: the first would cross the Union Pacific rail line, a single rail line that cannot be moved, but occupies little space; the second bridge would connect the park to the LA River Bike Path on the opposite side of the river. An excellent model for bridge development is the Seattle

61

Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Park (picture below). The creative design both crosses a central freeway as well as provides an extremely picturesque pedestrian bridge that will invite visitors from all around the city. Very similar design strategies can be used to cross the rail line as well as the river. A creative design is much more preferable than a simple bridge because it will bring a lot of attention to the park, which will increase involvement with the remaining portions of LA River revitalization.

(Olympic Sculpture Park, Seattle Washington, 2012)

All of these projects, however, will cost a lot of money and it may take a

considerable amount of fundraising and organizing before any construction is possible.

The cost of basic clean up alone will most likely be tens of millions of dollars; the cost specifics of decontamination will be released in the Army Corps study. Therefore, the aforementioned goals should be considered long-­‐term goals and short-­‐term goals also need to be developed. These short-­‐term goals ought to direct attention to the G2 parcel, educate about development potentials, and mobilize residents to action.

62

A large sculpture, similar to the effect of the Watts Towers, would draw a lot of

attention to the site and make education and mobilization possible. The sculpture would bring beauty to the desolate site because it would be visible from the Rio de Los Angeles Park and LA River Bike Path, which are commonly visited spaces. The sculpture could also gain enough attention to the park that it would bring in a large number of visitors. The increased traffic in the space would directly benefit the local businesses as well as provide the opportunity to educate them about the LA River, the G2 parcel, and development opportunities. Activism would absolutely increase as attention to the site increases. With that momentum the LA River organizations could better petition to various government agencies and private entities for funding to decontaminate and develop the remainder of the G2 parcel.

63

Looking Forward

The Los Angeles River is an extremely complex space with great potential and many

obstacles. The sheer volume of land occupied by the river makes singular redevelopment projects difficult because of their variability. The river touches many different neighborhoods and changes shape several times, thus a community-­‐based development process must be used in revitalization projects. The revitalization of the LA River should cover the entire pathway from the San Fernando Valley down to the Pacific Ocean and focus connecting all of the communities in between. The exact manifestations of those redevelopments ought to reflect each individual community while still being united by bike paths, pedestrian walkways, and public transportation. The river must connect the city because the value of every project is multiplied when paths of alternative transport unite them.

This project was limited by the sheer scope that a revitalization plan must entail.

Even the LA River Master Plan is limited in scope by not addressing much of the LA River watershed and large-­‐scale projects. The Army Corps feasibility study is limited as well for it only covers the 11-­‐mile reach north of Downtown LA. Every community along the LA River must conduct large-­‐scale studies if the revitalization projects will reflect the community’s identity. In the end, the river should be lined with many individualized public spaces that are all united by pathways of alternative transport.

64

The findings and recommendations in this study are focused on the development of the G2 parcel of Taylor Yard. With the understanding that connectivity between all of the communities along the LA River is vital, the development of G2 is a particularly valuable option. This site is unique for the sheer size of undeveloped space. There is very little vacant land in Los Angeles and G2’s adjacency to the LA River makes it a special opportunity. A very large park could be made from the Taylor Yard that would prove the city, nation, and world that Los Angeles cares about public space and has the means to achieve major redevelopments. The G2 parcel would be a massive space in Los Angeles that could support many of the unmet needs of the surrounding communities. Large spaces offer unique opportunities for Los Angeles because of their rarity. Therefore, they should be developed unlike any other park in Los Angeles as a symbol for future urban development.

This study is, however, just as much an analysis of the politics surrounding the G2

parcel, as it is a recommendation of urban design principles. The current trajectory of revitalization projects suggests that the river will be developed along the guidelines of the Army Corps of Engineers and LA Bureau of Engineering. However, the development of any project will not happen without community support. The projects are outstandingly expensive and within the current economic recession and federal government sequestration there are even fewer funds available for park development. The largest barrier to every LA River revitalization project will be the lack of funding available.

Hopefully global economic trends will shift over the next decade as the federal spending deficit is balanced and the economy stabilizes so that more public funding will become available for these redevelopment projects; it is, however, impossible to predict how these

65

trends will materialize. Los Angeles has a lot of money in it, but the sources need to be accessed by the public. Support by private donors is also a very good option and should be pursued. All social classes of Los Angeles ought to unite around the LA River revitalization because it touches a wide variety of communities and will benefit each of them.

66

Conclusion

The Los Angeles River is a key to the city’s reformation into an interconnected,

diverse, and supportive community. With so little park space available for residents to exercise and socialize, the city has become fractured. The channelized LA River is a uniform source of available land than can be redeveloped into a green space commons for the length of the county. The added green space will particularly help the low income communities of color that have significantly less green space than their affluent counterparts. Green space in a city is a matter of both environmental and public health; the lack of the green space is detrimental to the urban health of Southern California. The Los Angeles River has the capability to be redeveloped and ought to be redeveloped to remedy the issues that were caused by unsustainable urban design.

The G2 Parcel in Taylor Yard is the primary subject of focus in the redevelopment of

the land adjacent to the LA River. This unused industrial site lies contaminated on the banks of the LA River and offers an excellent opportunity to develop green space. The added green space would provide connection from the Rio de Los Angeles Park to the river, the adjacent Bike Path, and all other communities with river access. This park would be the bridge from North East Los Angeles into the rest of the city as well as a grand entrance into North East Los Angeles. The redevelopment of G2 can prove the benefits of green space in the city as well as bring attention and activism to more LA River revitalization.

67

The contamination of the G2 parcel is the most prohibitive element of development

of the site. The Army Corps will be released in December 2013 and will offer all of the necessary technical information for decontamination of the site. Once this report is released there will need to be significant activism to gain political support for the site.

There is a significant chance that the Union Pacific Railroad will sell the parcel to Trammel Crow to develop it into light industry use, but the community must fight back. The Cornfield followed a similar history, but the community prevailed over Majestic Realty and will be able to do the same once more. If the any organization can get the parcel into its possession a large sculpture in the site would call a lot of attention to the site and be able to function as a beacon for LA River activism across the region. The community must fight for the park and connectivity to other communities in Los Angeles if this park is to be created.

The LA River can change the entire transit infrastructural system by creating a

backbone network for alternative transport by bike. A series of parks along the river that offer entrances into the city from the Bike Path and vice versa would bring commuters and recreational riders to their destinations faster, more enjoyably, and more healthily. A park-­‐ based infrastructure, much like the 1930’s vision of the Olmstead brothers, is made most possible by using the LA River as the backbone and would change the city forever. It is time that the City of Los Angeles turns its back concrete and freeways and embrace green space as a primary alternative to current urban design norms.

68

Works Cited Arvidson, Enid. "Remapping Los Angeles, Or, Taking the Risk of Class in Postmodern Urban Form." Economic Geography 75.2 (1999): 134-­‐56. JSOTR. Web. <http://0-­‐ www.jstor.org.oasys.lib.oxy.edu/stable/144248>.

Collaton, Elizabeth. "Industrial Site Reuse and Urban Redevelopment—An Overview."

Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 2.3 (1996): 17-­‐61. JSTOR. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20868420>.

"CRHS #13 (60000054)." Envirostor. California Department of Toxic Substance Control, 17 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=60000054 >.

Cuff, Dana. "The Figure of the Neighbor: Los Angeles Past and Future." American Quarterly 56.3 (2004): 559-­‐82. JSTOR. Web. <http://0-­‐ www.jstor.org.oasys.lib.oxy.edu/stable/40068234>.

Dear, Michael, and Steven Flusty. "Postmodern Urbanism." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88.1 (1998): 50-­‐72. JSTOR. Web. <http://0-­‐ www.jstor.org.oasys.lib.oxy.edu/stable/2563976>.

Freeman, Gregory, and Ken Ackbarali. Redeveloping Obsolete Industrial Land with Modern Manufacturing Facilities: The Job, Wage and Tax Implications for State and Local Government. Publication. N.p.: Los Angeles County Economic Development Coporation, 2000. Print.

Gumprecht, Blake. The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1999. Print.

69

Gottlieb, Robert. Reinventing Los Angeles: Nature and Community in the Global City.

Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2007. Print.

"Interview with Brad Cox." Personal interview. 28 Feb. 2013.

"Interview With Carol Armstrong." Personal interview. 4 Feb. 2013.

"Interview with Josephine Axt." Personal interview. 25 Feb. 2013.

"Interview with Lewis MacAdams." Telephone interview. 18 Jan. 2013.

"Interview with Melanie Winter." Personal interview. 15 Dec. 2012.

"Interview with Miranda Rodriguez." Personal interview. 19 Dec. 2012.

"Interview with Omar Brownson." Personal interview. 31 Jan. 2013.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. [New York]: Random House, 1961.

Print.

Pulido, Laura. "Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90.1 (2000): 12-­‐40. JSTOR. Web. <http://0-­‐ www.jstor.org.oasys.lib.oxy.edu/stable/1515377>.

"The Railroad: 1920s-­‐80s." The River Project, n.d. Web. <http://www.theriverproject.org/projects/taylor-­‐yard-­‐rio-­‐de-­‐los-­‐angeles-­‐state-­‐ park/the-­‐railroad-­‐1920s-­‐80s>.

"Releases: Chemical Report." US EPA, n.d. Web. <http://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/release_chem?p_view=ZPCH&trilib=TRIQ1&sor t=_VIEW_&sort_fmt=1&state=&city=&spc=&zipcode=90039&zipsrch=yes&chemical =All+chemicals&industry=ALL&year=2011&tab_rpt=1&fld=RELLBY&fld=TSFDSP>.

70

Sigman, Hillary. "Environmental Liability and Redevelopment of Old Industrial Land."

Journal of Law and Economics 53.2 (2010): 289-­‐306. Print.

Sloane, David Charles. Planning Los Angeles. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2012.

Print.

Taylor Yard Multiple Objective Feasibility Study. Publication. Los Angeles: California State Coastal Conservancy, 2002. Print.

"Taylor Yard Parcel C." Envirostor. California Department of Toxic Substance Control, 1 Aug. 2011. Web. <http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=60001553 >.

United States of America. City of Los Angeles. Los Angeles River Master Plan. N.p.: n.p., 2007.

Print.

United States of America. Department of Water and Power. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Securing L.A.'s Water Supply. Los Angeles: n.p., 2008. Print.

United States of America. Environmental Protection Agency. Department of Toxic Substance Control. Union Pacific Taylor Yard: Public Comment Sought on Removal Action. Los Angeles: n.p., 1999. Print.

Wernstedt, Kris, Peter B. Meyer, and Anna Alberini. "Attracting Private Investment to Contaminated Properties: The Value of Public Interventions." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25.2 (2006): 247-­‐369. Print.

Wolch, Jennifer. "Green Urban Worlds." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97.2 (2007): 373-­‐84. Print.

71