River Talk

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

Andrew Stricklin

Cover images (from top): 1. Tyrone Hart has lived in the LA River channel near Griffith Park for
12 years. Source: LA Weekly/Photo: Erik Skindrud, 2015. 2. Cat faces used to adorn storm drain
covers in the LA River channel just north of the Fletcher Bridge. Photo: Diane Edwardson, 2011.
Edited by Andrew Stricklin. 3. Los Angeles River bike path through the West San Fernando
Valley. Source: Streetsblog L.A./Photo: Joe Linton, 2014. 4. Kayaking in the Sepulveda Basin.
Photo: Andrew Stricklin, 2015.

University of California
Los Angeles

River Talk

Building Trust Among LA River Community Stakeholders

Through a Collaborative Revitalization Dialogue

A comprehensive project submitted in partial

satisfaction of the requirements for the degree
Master of Urban and Regional Planning

By Andrew Stricklin

Client: LARiverWorks, Office of Mayor Eric Garcetti, City of Los Angeles

Faculty Chair: Dr. Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris

June 2016

Disclaimer: This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master in Urban
and Regional Planning degree in the Department of Urban Planning at the University of California, Los
Angeles. It was prepared at the direction of the Department and of LARiverWorks in the Office of Mayor
Eric Garcetti as a planning client. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily
those of the Department, the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, UCLA as a whole, or the client.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sincere gratitude to all my Riversisters and Riverbrothers who helped make River Talk
come to life, especially:
Dr. Carol Armstrong, for your encyclopedic knowledge of the Los Angeles River and your
unwavering commitment to its revitalization for generations of Angelenos to come.
Dr. Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, for inspiring me to become a passionate advocate of
inclusive public spaces that make our cities better.
Michael Affeldt, Marcelino Ascensio, Amalia Merino, Christopher Pia, and Melissa
Guerrero, for being the hardest working and most fun-loving Riverfamily an urban
planner could ask for.
Community Stakeholder Interviewees, for your time and invaluable insight, and for the
commitment to your communities you demonstrate daily .
The David Bohnett Foundation, for its generous support of my UCLA urban planning
education.
Dr. Gloria Rodriguez Bauelos, Dr. Laurie Gries, and Rachel Cox Gallardo, for supporting
me in my pursuit of a graduate education.
Bill and DeLaine Stricklin, for your unending love and support, even thousands of miles
away.
Sabin Ciocan, for your love, patience, and support, and for the countless hours you spent
listening to me talk about River Talk.

The Unfinished (Michael Parker, 2014) is an obelisk-shaped excavation located along the banks of the channelized LA River
at the Bowtie Project. It is a 137-foot replica of the Ancient Egyptian archaeological site known as The Unfinished Obelisk.
Source: Clockshop. Photo: Alexis Chanes.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The aim of River Talk is to identify how agencies governing the Los Angeles River can
build social capital and public trust for its revitalization. This document first examines
a brief history of the River and establishes how public trust is diminishing. Then, it
communicates the results of a qualitative, phenomenological research study that was
conducted to understand the perceptions and participation of LA River community
stakeholders, including neighborhood council board members, business owners, artists,
homeless services organization representatives, and other community organization
representatives. The study, which ran from October 2015 to April 2016, included thirty
community stakeholder interviews, six site observations, and three document analyses.
From this research, there are four significant findings:
1. Neighborhood councils and community organizations value the River
revitalization as an opportunity for increased public access and open space, but
participation is largely determined by the type of access that groups have to the
river and the communication they receive about it.
2. Artists value their personal connection to the River and its history, but they
express concern that the River is becoming an exclusive place.
3. Representatives from homeless services agencies and organizations explain
that people experiencing homelessness may choose to live at the River because
it is less restrictive, more secure and has a stronger sense of community than
other alternatives; these representatives also describe the need for dedicated
outreach teams at the River.
4. Stakeholders with interests in the Glendale Narrows stretch of the River express
concerns about development, transparency, and governance.
These findings were analyzed in the context of urban planning, urban design, and public
policy literature on engaging stakeholders. This analysis resulted in recommendations

that are intended to initiate a collaborative River revitalization dialogue. These five
recommendations include:
1. River governing agencies should develop communications strategies that are
clear and accessible to community stakeholders.
2. Neighborhood groups and River governing agencies should work together to
produce events that include safe, informal access to the River.
3. Local artists and River governing agencies should work together to create events
that require the re-examination of rules regulating art at the River.
4. Homeless services agencies and River governing agencies should partner to
establish outreach teams that connect people with permanent housing options.
5. River governing agencies should conduct ongoing, face-to-face outreach with
stakeholders along the Glendale Narrows.

CONTENTS
Introduction 9

From channelization to revitalization

An emerging gap in public trust

Literature Review 15

Perspectives on engaging stakeholders

Marginalized stakeholders
Freewheeling dialogue
Informal methods of inquiry
End result: social capital

Research Methodology 21
Objective
Setting
Actors

Data Collection

Findings and Analysis 27

Neighborhood councils and community organizations
Artists

People experiencing homelessness

Glendale Narrows stakeholders

Recommendations 37
References 41

Crews place rock on the Rivers sides during channelization on April 1, 1938.
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.

INTRODUCTION
FROM CHANNELIZATION TO REVITALIZATION

Throughout its history, the Los Angeles River has played an integral part in sustaining
human life in the Los Angeles Basin. In The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death and Possible
Rebirth, geographer Blake Gumprecht (1999) examines this history in depth. Gumprecht
cites radiocarbon dating evidence from William McCawleys The First Angelinos (1996)
to indicate that the Los Angeles River has served the needs of native groups located in
the area for thousands of years, including forty-five Gabrielino villages that were located
near the course of the River prior to the arrival of European explorers (p. 30-31). Later,
when Spanish settlers were granted permission to establish a pueblo in the area, they
selected a site one-half mile west of the River because it was a reliable source of water for
farming (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 42). Eventually, due in part to the California Gold Rush and
the completion of a transcontinental railroad link to Los Angeles, this settlement grew
from a small agricultural village to an important regional trading center in the nineteenth
century (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 56 and 83).
As population exploded, residential and commercial development replaced farmlands
and the Rivers natural flooding, previously seen as beneficial for agricultural lands,
became costly and dangerous as homes and businesses were established in the
floodplain (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 150-151). While floods dating back to the late 1800s
prompted proposals for flood management measures, it was the catastrophic flood of
February 1914 that served as a catalyst for the creation of the Los Angeles County Flood
Control Association (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 178). In 1934, flooding again devastated homes
and businesses. When local taxpayers would not support measures to construct flood
control projects, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District requested federal support
for flood damage. Two years later, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was brought in to build
dams to regulate runoff during storms (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 173). Within the City of Los
Angeles, the River has since been jointly maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers, the

A house slipping into the river during the 1914 flood.

Source: LA Public Library photo collection.

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

A map of the 1930 Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan for Los

Angeles. Source: Delirious LA.

The first proposal to revitalize the River actually existed decades before its channelization
when Dana Bartlett, inspired by the City Beautiful movement, wrote The Better City in 1907.
Bartlett, founder of the Bethlehem Institute, which provided baths, counseling, and social
services to the poor, wanted to create riverside parks and promenades in addition to a
grand civic center in order to avoid the crowded conditions of other cities, but his plan was
never realized (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 259). In the same year, the Municipal Art Commission
of Los Angeles proposed that the Los Angeles City Council hire Charles Mulford Robinson,
one of the fathers of the City Beautiful movement, to develop a beautification proposal for
Los Angeles. His report was published in 1909, but he made few recommendations for the
river channel, except that it should be cleared of trash, lined with willows and cottonwoods,
and include handsome bridges (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 260). The most significant early
proposal for beautification of the River was made in 1930 when Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.
and Harland Bartholomew were commissioned to develop a comprehensive plan for park
development in Los Angeles County (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 265). Olmsted and Bartholomew
recommended that parkways be established along more than 17 miles of the River. They
also recommended that regulations be established to prevent building on the floodplains.
This plan was also never realized (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 267).
Despite these plans for beautification, the risk of flooding remained the paramount
concern for people in Los Angeles. This concern was realized during the March 1938 flood,
which inundated thousands of acres adjacent to the River and caused the deaths of fortyfive people and millions of dollars in damage (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 215-216). This event
solidified the need for a channel that was lined with concrete to hold in even the most
extreme conditions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a more elaborate plan for
flood management in LA County, and it was endorsed by Congress and funded through the
Flood Control Act of 1941 (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 220-222). Work on the Los Angeles County
Drainage Area Project included 3.5 million barrels of cement and 147 million pounds of
reinforced steel, and was fully completed in 1970 (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 226).
For decades, the River lay guarded by chain link fence and barbed wire, only used for

10

illegal purposes (Gumprecht, 1999, p. 236). In 1985, however, a group of artists and poet
Lewis MacAdams saw potential in the River and founded Friends of the Los Angeles River
(FoLAR), marking the birth of an advocacy movement to revitalize the River (Gumprecht,
1999, p. 250-253). Since FoLARs founding, both Los Angeles County, in 1996, and the City
of Los Angeles, in 2007, adopted plans to revitalize the River. These plans have led to local,
state, and federal legislation that has raised millions of dollars for revitalization projects,
including over 20 miles of bike paths, signage, new parks, and a summer kayaking
recreation program (City of Los Angeles, 2016).

AN EMERGING GAP IN PUBLIC TRUST

One of the most significant milestones in the revitalization effort came in 2006, when the
City signed an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to co-sponsor
an ecosystem restoration study and establish a partnership with the federal government.
This led to a $10 million USACE investigation to gauge federal interest in and the feasibility
of ecosystem restoration (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2016). The result of the study
was a combined Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report
recommending a comprehensive restoration of the 11-mile Glendale Narrows portion
of the River. In 2015, the USACE Civil Works Review Board unanimously approved this
$1.3 billion restoration plan in Washington D.C. (Fox, 2013). As of May 2016, the project is
pending authorization and appropriation of funds by the United States Congress.

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

Lewis MacAdams. Source: Bloomberg/Getty.

The progression of the USACE plan, however, has not been the only noteworthy
revitalization event recently. In August 2015, River LA, a nonprofit established by the
City in 2009 to spur development along the River (and formerly known as the LA River
Revitalization Corporation), announced its commission of famed architect Frank Gehry to
study the Rivers water (Jamison, Groves, & Weikel, 2015). Moreover, in an interview with
The New York Times, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti explained that Gehry would elevate
the revitalization project so the civic elite would take notice, alluding to the importance
of private funding for the project (Nagourney, 2015).
These events have led to news reports outlining public concern about the project. In May
2014, the Los Angeles Times published an article, Big plans, and concerns, surround L.A.

11

Rivers revitalization, discussing the estimated billions of dollars in new developments

expected to come from the USACE project and the housing cost impacts it poses to current
riverfront residents (Sahagun & Saillant, 2014). More recently, KCRW published a report
about gentrification coming to the LA River (Gonzalez, 2015), and The Nation released
an article, Will the Los Angeles River Become a Playground for the Rich?, claiming the
revitalization project has gone from social-justice crusade to money-soaked land grab
(Kreitner, 2016).
To some extent, public concern is a natural part of a project that is as expansive, multibenefit and multijurisdictional as the LA River revitalization. Since channelization, the
Rivers primary function has been to serve as a 51-mile-long flood channel, draining an 870
square mile watershed area. Revitalization, however, unlocks the potential for many other
uses. For example, from an ecological perspective, the River represents an opportunity to
restore a riparian habitat in one of the most urbanized areas in the world and a chance
to capture and reclaim runoff water in a region prone to drought. For riverfront residents,
revitalization represents the possibility of a network of connected green spaces in a
park-poor part of the City that could offer a place for active and passive recreation like
bicycling, kayaking, and bird watching.

A map showing the footprint of the USACE LA River Ecosystem

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

Implementing such changes, however, is complicated by the political and financial realities
of the project. Financially, it is an enormously expensive public undertaking that requires
layered public, nonprofit and private capital. Politically, the River is a multijurisdictional
body that runs through fourteen cities, including twenty Neighborhood Councils in the
City of Los Angeles, and is maintained by numerous governing bodies. The permitting
process for projects in or adjacent to the River channel often involves approval from
agencies at multiple levels of government, such as the Departments of Transportation
and Water and Power and the Bureau of Engineering at the City, the Department of Public
Works at the County, and the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers at the federal level.
In short, it is a classic example of the type of planning problem Rittel and Webber
described as wicked in 1973. Whereas problems based solely in the natural science are

12

definable, separable, and may have findable solutions, planning problems like this are
ill-defined, rely upon political judgment, and may never be fully solved (Rittel & Webber,
1973). Restoring perhaps the most significant natural feature in the history of Los Angeles,
it turns out, is a wicked problem.
Acknowledging this complexity, the aim of River Talk is to identify how agencies governing
the River, such as the City of Los Angeles, can build social capital and public trust for
its revitalization. Specifically, this document communicates the results of a qualitative,
phenomenological research study that was conducted to understand the perceptions and
participation of LA River community stakeholders, including neighborhood council board
members, business owners, artists, homeless services organization representatives, and
other community organization representatives. The study ran from October 2015 to April
2016 and included thirty community stakeholder interviews, six site observations, and
three document analyses. The findings were analyzed in the context of urban planning,
urban design, and public policy literature on engaging stakeholders in order to inform
recommendations that will initiate a collaborative River revitalization dialogue. In the
following sections, this report reviews the relevant literature, outlines the research
methodology used, discusses the findings from the data, and makes recommendations
for the future.

13

Tyrone Hart has lived in the LA River channel near Griffith Park for 12 years. Source: LA Weekly/
Photo: Erik Skindrud, 2015.

LITERATURE REVIEW
PERSPECTIVES ON ENGAGING STAKEHOLDERS

No matter how wicked a problem may be, community engagement literature from the past
half-century tells us that in order to be successful, a planning project must cultivate the
trust of the public. The need for trust and reciprocity to effectively solve public problems
is a research topic that was popularized through such publications as Bowling Alone: The
Collapse and Revival of American Community by Robert Putnam (2000). Putnam argued
that social capitalmeaning the networks, connections, and relations that exist among
people in a societyhas an inherent value, especially for civic engagement. In urban
planning, the increase in the importance of social capital pre-dated Putnams book by
nearly forty years with the rise of advocacy and participatory planning that began with
Jane Jacobss 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Today, building public
trust in the processes that shape public policy and urban design is viewed as critically
important to the success of planning projects.
As research on this topic has blossomed in the twenty-first century, it has also become
more specialized within the built environment fields. The work of Jane Jacobs, who was
not formally trained in a built environment field, was broad and cross-disciplinary. Today,
however, scholars in architecture, landscape architecture, urban planning, and public
policy, each develop their own approaches to community engagement. This literature
review acknowledges that public planning initiatives like revitalizing an urban river
require community involvement in the formation of policy and design. Because of this, it
examines publications from both the public policy and urban design professions.
The two publications this review most heavily draws from are Everyday Urbanism:
Expanded by John Chase, Margaret Crawford, and John Kaliski (2008), which proposes a
new paradigm for urban design, and Planning with Complexity: A Public Policy Approach
to Solving Intractable Public Problems by Judith Innes and David Booher (2010). These

Putnam (2000) explains how Americans have

become increasingly disconnected from family,
friends, neighbors, and democratic structures
in Bowling Alone. Source: BowlingAlone.com.

15

books and others establish the criteria for engaging stakeholders in processes that lead to
successful planning outcomes. This review finds that the most successful processes are
inclusive of marginalized stakeholders, rely on freewheeling dialogue, and are conducted
using informal methods of inquiry. Ultimately, the implementation of these factors proves
to create new relationships in a community, building critical social capital.

MARGINALIZED STAKEHOLDERS

Public planning initiatives must be inclusive of marginalized stakeholders because missing

stakeholders can jeopardize public trust entirely. Chase, Crawford, and Kaliski (2008)
emphasized this notion in their work Everyday Urbanism: Expanded, which promoted a
design paradigm that provides a way to reconnect urban design to ordinary human life.
Their theory is rooted in a radical repositioning of the designera shift in power from
the professional expert to the ordinary individual (Chase et al., 2008, p. 9). These everyday
urbanists argue for the transfer of authority from experts to individual users in order
to bring power struggles to the forefront of the design and planning process. Because
designers must listen to the voices, dreams, and desires of users, the end result is a set
of proposals and counterproposals that proceed tactically from the ground up (Chase et
al., 2008, p. 107). Everyday Urbanism, thus, forces planners and designers to examine the
debates and struggles over economic participation, democracy, and identity that exist
in these spaces (Chase et al., 2008, p. 29). This approach ensures that no stakeholder is
left out.

Everyday Urbanism: Expanded (2008) promotes a design paradigm

that provides a way to reconnect urban design to ordinary human
life. Source: UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design.

16

Judith Innes and David Booher (2010), in Planning with Complexity, argue for a process
of policy development that is collaboratively rational, meaning all affected interests
are jointly engaged in a dialogue that is inclusive to all participants, whether they are
powerful or not. They argue that only total inclusivity will uncover what is hidden behind
socially constructed understandings because diverse stakeholders assure that the
difficult questions are addressed. Both from a design and policy standpoint, including
stakeholders that are often forgotten helps build public trust and leads to a stronger final
outcome.

FREEWHEELING DIALOGUE

The second ingredient to a successful community engagement process is a reliance on

freewheeling dialogue as a means to develop action. For Innes and Booher, a freewheeling
dialogue occurs around a table where various perspectives can be discussed. They
emphasize that the process should be face-to-face because in-person, unrestrained
dialogue leads to the discovery of mutual gain opportunities, and, thus, agreements that
are robust, rather than superficial or weak.
In urban planning, community dialogue often takes place in the form of a public meeting, a
setting that is hardly freewheeling and rarely around a table. Community activist, planner,
and artist James Rojas (2015) criticizes the traditional urban planning public meeting as
something that is rigid and formal, often creating conflict and limiting creativity. He also
explains that the communication tools of urban planners are abstract: numbers, words,
PowerPoints, and surveys. These tools have the opposite effect of freewheeling and faceto-face dialogue. Michael Rios (2014) echoes this notion, explaining that public meetings,
community charrettes, and other tools of planning can create illusions of democracy. To
build trust, it seems, planners should rely primarily on the simplest tool: talking.

A process is collaboratively
rational to the extent that
all the affected interests
jointly engage in face to face
dialogue, bringing their various
perspectives to the table to
deliberate on the problems they
face together.
Innes and Booher (2010) in Planning with Complexity

In addition to how planners conduct community dialogue, where they conduct it can
be equally important. Landscape architect Randolph Hester (2006), in Design for
Ecological Democracy, argues that designers and planners must first create places that
enable citizens to connect with neighbors in their localities. A strong democracy, he
says, cannot occur without the forum for thoughtful and deliberative cooperation. This
is why he underscores the importance of creating centers, such as parks and plazas,
where community members share interests and are drawn together for face-to-face civic
engagement. For some planning initiatives, however, no established centers exist for a
community dialogue to take place. To this point, Hou and Kinoshita (2007) respond that
stakeholders should be engaged through informal events and meeting places, such as
neighborhood events, tours, and personal conversations. This approach helps overcome
the limitations of institutionalized participation by creating new social relationships
among the participants.

17

INFORMAL METHODS OF INQUIRY

Finally, urban planners, designers, and policymakers should incorporate informal

methods of inquiry into the planning and design process. In Why Urban Planners Should
Work with Artists, Rojas (2015) uses Los Angeless Eastside Latino community as an
example of a group that has historically been left out of the planning dialogue. According
to him, residents in East LA have been excluded by the narrow set of tools and uncreative
community outreach strategies used by urban planners. To learn about a place and its
inhabitants, planners typically collect data in the form of numbers, maps, policy, and
maybe a site visit or talking to people. In this way, planners miss the music, narratives,
visual arts, and other cultural assets that are the verve of the Latino community in East
Los Angeles. As an alternative, Rojas suggests that urban planners should learn from the
Chicano artists because their artistic process represents a method of inquiry that reflects
their community in a visceral way. Local zoning codes, for example, cannot account
for a front yard that becomes a plaza or a store sign that becomes a work of art. Rojas
recommends that planners approach their method of inquiry by using their body and
senses to explore the site. He says that planners should ask the same questions artists
ask, such as, How does the site feel? What do I see or not see? What are the urban patterns
playing out within the site? What are the relics here?
The River Rover, FoLARs Mobile Visitor and Education Center that
travels the streets and freeways bringing the River to the people.
Source: Friends of the Los Angeles River.

18

This approach is similar to the one Walter Hood (1999) outlines in Urban Diaries:
Improvisation in West Oakland, California. He uses improvisation to document the patterns
of a site in order to bring true-to-life community issues to the surface. The main feature
of this method is the objective nature of the observer while she or he is experiencing a
place. Acknowledging that most spaces have historically been created from middle-class
values, Hood suggests that urban planners operate by throwing away preconceived
notions, moral stances, and reformist approaches (Chase et al., 2008, p. 155). This frees
designers and planners to use their eyes and ears to observe everyday life. It also means
that the observer will not place judgment on uses and activities that subvert the original
goals of the site, such as the presence of adults that are homeless drinking alcohol in a
minipark or teenagers expressing themselves through graffiti. For Hood, an open mind
is the key to understanding difference; this allows an observer to understand the nontraditional views of city life.

As a final set of examples, Margaret Crawford and Michael Rios have explored nontraditional urban design and planning tools with their students. To understand the
experiences of individuals in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Crawfords Harvard design
students focused on the more uncertain realm of subjective experience, avoiding the
abstract tools typically used by planners, such as statistical information and maps of
urban zones and land uses or traffic engineering (Chase et al., 2008, p. 210). Similarly,
Michael Rios (2014), in Learning from Informal Practices: Implications for Urban Design,
describes the process of using informal design practices to understand minority groups.
He describes his students use of visual documentation (e.g., photography or video clips)
in order to supplement a narrative (e.g., journal or poetry) that can capture the embodied
qualities of a site (Rios, 2014, p. 181). The utility of this technique is echoed by Innes
and Booher (2010) who argue that stories are critical to communication across lay and
professional cultures because stories can capture the essence of a cultures value system
whether factually true or not.

This is a good plan, but the best

thing about this project is that
we got to know our neighbors.
A community stakeholder quote from Hester (2006) in Design
for Ecological Democracy

END RESULT: SOCIAL CAPITAL

The result of a process that includes marginalized stakeholders, is based on freewheeling

dialogue, and makes use of informal methods of inquiry, is a community for which social
capital potential is unleashed. Hester (2006) gives an important example from his work on
the participatory design process of Runyon Canyon in Hollywood. At the final community
meeting, a park neighbor stood up to say, the best thing about the project is that we got
to know out neighbors. Innes and Booher (2010) agree; the longest lasting outcomes and
system adaptations build on the relationships and learning that emerge from a genuinely
collaborative dialogue.

19

Los Angeles River bike path through the West San

Fernando Valley. Source: Streetsblog L.A./Photo: Joe
Linton, 2014.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research study is to understand the perceptions and participation
of LA River community stakeholders and use the findings to inform recommendations
that can initiate a collaborative revitalization dialogue. For this objective, a qualitative,
phenomenological research approach was taken to answer two primary research
questions:
1. How do community stakeholders describe their relationship to the LA River?
2. How are stakeholders informed about and engaged in the effort to revitalize the
River?

SETTING

The setting of the research was the Los Angeles River. While some field observations
have been made on-site, most research was not conducted at the River. This was due
to the geographic size of the River (32 miles within the City of Los Angeles), and its
limited access in some parts. Additionally, much of the communitys participation in the
revitalization effort does not take place at the River; instead, it happens in neighborhood
council meetings, at City Hall, and online.

ACTORS

The main actors of the study are thirty community stakeholders, including neighborhood
council board members, business owners, artists, homeless services organization
representatives, and other community organization representatives. On the following
page is a list of categories of stakeholders interviewed. These categories were chosen due
to their diversity of interests and their historical relationship to the River. Artists, people
experiencing homelessness, and neighborhood groups, especially, have a longstanding

21

history with the Los Angeles River. Stakeholders interviewed included:

7 neighborhood council board members
5 business owners
5 artists
3 homeless services organization representatives
2 school representatives
2 religious institution representatives
2 art-related organization representatives
1 chamber of commerce board member
1 community nonprofit representative
1 apartment complex manager
1 city park ranger
The LA River Revitalization Master Plan (2007). Source: City
of Los Angeles.

The names and locations of each of the organizations represented by the these individuals
are mapped on the following page. To select individual participants, all neighborhood
councils, businesses, schools, and religious institutions within a quarter-mile of the River
were first identified. This was done using the City of LAs websites for neighborhood
councils (www.empowerla.org) and geo-spatial databases (www.geohub.lacity.org) in
addition to Google Maps (www.google.com/maps). These websites provided locations of
River-adjacent community organizations and businesses. Due to constraints of time and
resources, not all relevant stakeholders within a half-mile of the River could be invited to
participate. Instead, with input from City of LA staff, certain stakeholders were purposefully
selected because of their location and the availability of their contact information. The
goal was to have a mix of stakeholders representing the full length of the River (within the
City of LA) and with a diverse set of needs. In total, individuals were invited to participate
from 20 neighborhood councils, 18 businesses, and 10 community organizations.
The study also included two stakeholder groups that could not be identified through city
databases: artists and representatives from homeless services agencies. To identify LA
River artists, John Arroyos 2010 MIT thesis, Culture in Concrete: Art and the Re-imagination
of the Los Angeles River as Civic Space, which examined 20 art projects at or inspired by

22

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

the River, was examined. This led to 9 artists or art-related organizations being invited to
interview.
Homeless services agencies were identified through the Homeless Shelter Directory
(www.homelessshelterdirectory.org) and LA Countys 211 LA website (www.211la.org). In
total, representatives from 6 homeless services agencies or organizations were invited
to participate. One important note is that although people experiencing homelessness
are a significant stakeholder group of the River, no individuals living at the River were
interviewed. This is due to two reasons. First, the window for interviews occurred during
an El Nio winter that made accessing the River unsafe; in addition, many parts of the

23

River where people live, such as along the Glendale Narrows and near the Arroyo Seco
Confluence, were barricaded off by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a safety precaution.
The second reason is that the limited time frame for the data collection window did not
allow time for the coordination with social workers to identify, locate, and interview
people living at the River.

DATA COLLECTION

The primary data collection strategy used was semi-structured interviews. From February
2016 to April 2016, representatives from all thirty stakeholder groups were interviewed
either by phone or in person. An interview protocol form was used to record notes during
each interview. Each participant was asked the same (or some variation of the same) six
questions:

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

2015.

1. How would you describe you/your organizations relationship to the Los Angeles
River?
2. What do you/people from your organization know about the plan to revitalize
the River?
3. Have you/people from your organization been involved in any way in the
revitalization effort?
4. What do you think would increase participation?
5. How do you expect to find out about updates to the River revitalization?
6. What does the revitalization mean to you?
In addition to interviews, field observations and document analyses were also used as
data collection strategies in order to collect additional information. Six field observations
between November 2015 and March 2016 were made in order to observe formal and
informal activities. These observations were made at the River in Canoga Park, the
Sepulveda Basin, Studio City, Atwater Village, Elysian Valley, and Downtown Los Angeles.
These sites were selected for the variation of the physical environment they provided
both within and adjacent to the River channel. In Canoga Park and Studio City, the River
channel is completely concrete and surrounded by residential and commercial land uses;
in the Sepulveda Basin, the River channel is natural with no concrete and surrounded

24

by recreation areas and preserved land; in Atwater Village and Elysian Valley, the River
channel has concrete banks with a soft, natural bottom, and the adjacent land uses are
mostly residential and industrial; and, finally, in Downtown the River channel is completely
concrete, surrounded by industrial land uses.
Five documents, including the Citys 2007 LA River Revitalization Master Plan, one set
of meeting minutes, and three newspaper articles, were analyzed. Both the meeting
minutes and the newspaper articles addressed people experiencing homelessness at the
River. This analysis provided important supplementary information because, as explained
previously, no individuals who live at the River were interviewed for this study. These
documents gave important insight into the perceptions of homeless adults living at the
River as well as detailed accounts of their living conditions.

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

25

Equestrian riders in the LA River channel near Griffith Park.

Source: Play the LA River/Photo: Jeff Houze.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

To interpret the data, all information, including notes and recordings, was organized, handcoded, and aggregated by theme. The themes that surfaced were communication about
the revitalization, physical access to the River, exclusivity of the project, and diverging
stakeholder values. Throughout the process, the data was organized categorically,
reviewed repeatedly, and continually coded. Then, to represent the data, it was formed
into a narrative passage that could serve as a representation of community stakeholders
experiences. What follows is the result of this process. The first three findings are presented
by stakeholder type: neighborhood councils and community organizations, artists, and
people experiencing homelessness. The fourth finding is related to a geographic location.

1. NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS

Neighborhood councils and community organizations value River revitalization as an

opportunity for increased public access and open space, but participation is largely
determined by the type of access that groups have to the river and the communication
they receive about it.
A mostly positive vision of the revitalization
When asked what revitalization meant for their communities, all neighborhood
representatives responded with a positive vision. The most common vision described
included open space and opportunities for recreation at the River. For example, a
Downtown LA resident expressed her opinion that because Downtown is completely
starved for recreation and green space, people would really love if the River was a place
for open space. Many of the visions included the need for a place that was relaxing and
conducive to passive recreation. These responses included such phrases and comments
as a place for scenic beauty, a respite from traffic and daily life, and a place where
visitors can stroll along the River and check out shops and cafes. A few representatives
also acknowledged the opportunity for ecological benefits. These people mentioned

27

that the City should purchase River-adjacent parcels for conservancy, use the River for
stormwater capture, and emphasize environmental and wildlife enhancement in the
revitalization.
Four representatives, while describing a positive vision of what revitalization will mean
to their community, did include negative aspects of revitalization. One person was
unsure why the City chose the most expensive revitalization option (referring to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ARBOR Study). Another person wanted to emphasize that
the primary function of the River needs to remain flood management. And, finally, two
people mentioned that development does concern some neighbors, especially in regard
to increasing housing cost.

A rendering of the Arroyo Seco Confluence from the USACE

LA River Ecosystem Restoration Project. Source: USACE/
Rendering: Mia Lehrer+Associates and RAC Design Build.

The impact of physical access on participation

Despite across-the-board support for the potential benefits of revitalization, current
physical access to the River has a major impact on participation. Communities with
high levels of access describe a strong relationship with the River. For example, a board
member from Atwater Village Neighborhood Council explained, We are right on the River
and so we are very much in touch with everything that is going on. A school administrator
at St. Frances de Sales Elementary Schoola school that is directly adjacent to the River
channeldescribed the recently constructed River path in the schools neighborhood
as a safe new amenity for students to access a nearby commercial plaza instead of
using the traffic-heavy Ventura Boulevard. For other groups where River access is new,
like the Canoga Park Neighborhood Council and the Winnetka Neighborhood Council,
representatives expressed a desire to increase participation from their organizations now
that access exists.
Conversely, neighborhood and community groups with limited access to the River do not
describe a strong relationship to it. For example, a neighborhood council board member
from Glassell Park explained that although many people are aware of the revitalization
in his neighborhood, there is not a lot of participation because most of it is happening
on the other bank and the train tracks block Glassell Park from the River. Similarly, a
Downtown LA Neighborhood Council board member commented that she believes people

28

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

Downtown is reasonably far away from the River.
The impact of communication on participation
In a third of the interviews conducted, respondents expressed frustration that
communication about the River Revitalization is unclear. Some of the responses that
expressed this frustration include:
News about the River is spotty at best.
It would be wonderful if someone would come update us.
No place exists for universal informationwhere can I find all the projects in one
place?
Are we on track? Are there delays?
I havent received any information regarding the River directly from the City in my
two years as a board member.
Six representatives responded that they believe better communication would increase
participation in their community. The most common way people are informed about
updates to the River revitalization is by news reports. For some, this includes general
news sources, such as the Los Angeles Times. Other respondents mentioned more topicspecific news sources, such as CurbedLA, or neighborhood news sources like Downtown
Muse. The second most common way people receive updates is via email. The primary
sources of LA River e-blasts include River LA (formerly known as the LA River Revitalization
Corporation), Friends of the Los Angeles River (FoLAR), and City Councilmember weekly
newsletters. Other ways of receiving news about the River include hearing about updates
from customers, searching online, tracking council files, receiving promotional materials
in the mail (e.g., Play the LA River interactive deck), and social media.
Lacking clear channels of communication, participation is limited to only those
stakeholders who proactively research and track updates about the River. Stakeholders
who want more information said that online searching and blogs are the best option, but
many did not know where to go.

29

2. ARTISTS

Artists value their personal connection to the River and its history, but they expressed
concern about the River becoming an exclusive place.
A personal connection
Among the four groups in the study, artists, especially graffiti artists, have the most
personal connection to the River. Leo Limn, the graffiti artist well-known for painting the
Rivers storm covers as River Catz said, I live, breathe, and love in the LA River because I
grew up on its utility roads. For many of the artists, the neglected River channel offered a
place of self-discovery. SABER, a local graffiti artist described by some as one of the best
and most respected in the field, explained that graffiti was hated when he was growing
up, and because nobody cared about the River and they hated graffiti, it was a good fit.
For him and other artists like him, the River offered a place to experiment with creativity,
especially since high culture was inaccessible in Los Angeles. Another artist, ManOne,
expressed that the River felt like a playground for him and his friends growing up.

One of Leo Limns LA River Catz. Photo: flickr user anarchosyn (A

Syn).

Non-graffiti artists also described a personal connection to the River. Photographer Bill
Johnson was attracted the River for its famous concrete bridges because he studied
construction management. This led him to spend forty nights in the River to capture the
perfect shot of the downtown bridges. Another photographer, Stephen Callis, described
that the River was part of my life in the 1990s when he lived in Silver Lake and began
photographing vacant lots along the bank.
In addition, these artists were familiar with the Rivers complicated history. Margaret
Arnold, a news editor at NELAart, explains that this could be because artists have always
been drawn to the confluence of the LA River and the Arroyo Seco. She believes the River
represents pride in knowing where we came from. When asked what could increase
participation among artists, Leo Limn responded that a true civics could bring the full
HERstory of the LA River to the forefront, which includes the displacement of the native
Tongva people from the area and the Chicano Art Movement of the 1960s and 1970s.

30

A fear of being excluded

Despite their longstanding personal relationship to the River, graffiti artists feel like their
work is still misunderstood and the River is becoming increasingly exclusive. SABER
believes strongly that there is a movement to eradicate our history with the LA River
because people do not understand the depth of graffiti as an art form. He is heartbroken
that artists legacy is not being preserved as the River transforms into an exclusive place.
ManOne also expressed his frustration that LA River artists, even the ones who work as
professional artists now, have not been asked to be at the table. He described his effort
to include artists into the revitalization effort by coordinating Meeting of the Styles in
2007, an event that brought graffiti artists to the River from across the country. He said
that despite his efforts to work with officials, the art from the event was removed. He, too,
fears the River is becoming something that is not inclusive, even for artists who brought
attention to the River in the first place.
Finally, many artists believe the art projects permitted by the Plan are too safe or removed
from true engagement with the River and its users. The Plan prescribes that art may be
focused near the River, but should also occur outside the River right-of-way (City of LA,
2007, p. 5-36). In his 2010 MIT thesis, John Arroyo examined the patterns, motivations,
and history behind over 40 largely unheralded art projects over a 20-year period along
the Rivers Glendale Narrows, Lower Arroyo Seco, and downtown (p. 3). He found that
artists think the current restrictions are too safe and only due to the pervasive thinking
of engineering, flood control, and life safety measures that have fundamentally dictated
planning along the River since the 1930s (p. 141).

3. PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS

Representatives from homeless services agencies and organizations explain that

people experiencing homelessness at the River value it because it is less restrictive,
more secure and has a stronger sense of community than other alternatives; they
also describe the need for dedicated outreach teams at the River.

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

Mauer, 2007.

A less restrictive environment

People experiencing homelessness that live at the River often choose to do so because it

31

is perceived as a less restrictive, more secure, and more spacious alternative to living on
a city street or even at a homeless shelter. The Director of Homeless Services at the Los
Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), Jeanette Rowe, explained that the River
environment is an accessible place where there is space for people and their belongings
and not many rules to follow. This is corroborated by Aura Bogados findings from her
2015 report on people living at the River and their precautions for El Nio. Living at the
River, she writes, allows people to set their own schedule. Shelters wake people up very
early in the morning and then they have to return in the afternoon to wait in line for a bed
again. Additionally, some shelters only give people a small cubbyhole for their belongings
and they are often not pet friendly. These factors deter people from shelters. According
to Rowe, an ideal shelter transition for people who live at the River would be a place
that houses people for longer than 90 days, accepts pets, accepts people with varying
disabilities, and has a low threshold for substance abuse.
Security
Another factor that draws people to the River is security, even despite concerns about the
hazard of flooding. KCET reporter Lucy Guanuna interviewed a woman named Jesse who
was evicted from her Highland Park apartment and moved to the Arroyo Seco/LA River
confluence. Jesse says that in her three years of being homeless, the River was the safest
place she stayed because it was removed from hostile neighbors and the harassment
of park rangers. People living on streets are often questioned, ticketed, arrested, or their
belongings are confiscated. This makes the remoteness of the River appealing, especially
for people that prefer to camp or have pets.
Encampments in the Los Angeles River drains. Source: LAWeekly/
Photo: Hillel Aron, 2015.

32

A sense of community
Finally, people are drawn to life at the River because of the sense of community it affords.
People that set up encampments in metro areas (e.g., in Skid Row or on inner-city streets)
often do not have enough time to build a strong community before they are displaced or
have to relocate. At the River, however, groups of encampments can go unbothered for
months. This allows for people to build relationships with one another. This strong sense
of community, in fact, is what often makes people who live at the River more resistant to
homeless services. When outreach teams at LAHSA encounter this, they work to identify

the anchor of the groupthis is typically a person who has been at the encampment
for a long period of time and helps newcomers adapt to the River. Outreach teams believe
that if the anchor agrees to services, the rest of the group will follow.
The need for outreach teams
Some respondents believe the solutions to homelessness presented in the Plan are
ineffective. The problem is that solutions that are top down, impose regulatory policies,
and do not consider the everyday experience of the people are not effective. The following
excerpt from the Master Plan illustrates some of these elements.
Many homeless encampments exist along the River, which can make visitors using
bicycle paths and pedestrian trails uncomfortable. These encampments are removed
periodically through police action, including a due process that involves posting signs
for a week in advance prior to evicting homeless encampments within the channel
right-of-way. The opportunity exists for this revitalization Plan to address homelessness
by creating more jobs within River-adjacent neighborhoods and increasing the amount
of affordable housing provided throughout the region. (City of LA, 2007, p. 3-20)

The homeless services representatives interviewed explained that instead of emphasizing

regulatory policies, the Plan should focus on establishing funding and resources to
support dedicated outreach teams that specialize in working with people living at the
River. Further, while low-cost design amenities aimed toward helping people living at
the River, such as portable showers or laundry facilities, may seem like a short-term
fix, the homeless services representatives agreed that outreach teams are far more
important for housing people. If the end-goal is housing, they explained, amenities must
be implemented in conjunction with outreach teams who can build relationships with
their clients in order to link them to housing.

4. GLENDALE NARROWS STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholders with interests in the Glendale Narrows stretch of the River expressed
concerns about development, transparency, and governance.

33

Development
Five out of the six people interviewed from Atwater Village or Elysian Valley expressed
concern about developers and money in the revitalization. This stretch of the River,
referred to as the Glendale Narrows, is the centerpiece of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers ecosystem restoration project. A business owner in Elysian Valley explained
that how he thinks, its a fantastic opportunityBut recently Ive become down about
the whole thing. It seems like an opportunity for people to make money. This sentiment
was also expressed by two board members of neighborhood groups, one of whom stated,
The only negative is the speculation due to real estate. This is a major concern for some,
especially renters. Theses stakeholders along the Glendale Narrows portion of the River
are concerned that real estate developers have too much control over what is happening
to the River.

A before and after depiction of the Taylor Yard G-2 Parcel in the
Glendale Narrows. Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

34

Transparency and governance

There is also a belief that the governing agencies are not transparent about what is
happening with the revitalization. A Downtown business owner responded that she thinks
participation would increase if we knew our feedback would be important and would not
be steamrolled. Similarly, a board member of the Atwater Village Chamber of Commerce
expressed that the River groups are confusing, mentioning that, It keeps changing, Is
it still the Army Corps? What about Frank Gehry?, and The River is so complexFoLAR,
River Corp, the City. Related to this point, an Atwater Village representative explained that
River governance is very frustrating because when someone in her community has an
issue, they dont know where to go or who to talk to: Do they go to the County or the City?
What about the Army Corps? Three of the respondents did not seem to understand what
agencies have jurisdiction over the River: the LA County Flood Control District, the Citys
LARiverWorks Office, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. One of the most common names
these respondents used when describing River governance is Friends of the Los Angeles
River, which is a nonprofit that does not have any governmental jurisdiction over the River.

35

Northeast Los Angeles Riverfront Collaborative.

Source: City of LA.

RECOMMENDATIONS
From the literature review and the findings from the data analysis, the following is a
list of five recommendations about engaging community stakeholders. Acknowledging
that community dialogueRiver Talkrequires all parties to work together, these
recommendations, mostly rooted in policy and planning actions, are intended for not only
the Rivers governing agencies, but for all River stakeholders.
1. River governing agencies should develop communications strategies that
are clear and accessible to community stakeholders.
Stakeholders receive messages across a number of media, especially news sources,
email, and social media. Planners should prioritize the development of a streamlined
communications strategy. This should include a central place where community
representatives can look for list of the most recent events that are taking place with
the revitalization. Planners should also coordinate with neighborhood council board
members to ensure they are informed about how to learn about the revitalization. Finally,
staff from across different River governing agencies and organizations should coordinate
their communications strategies so that community stakeholders do not receive mixed or
redundant messages.
2. Neighborhood groups and River governing agencies should work together
to produce events that include safe, informal access to the River.
The literature review found that building social capital is a critical way to build trust for
public planning initiatives: Innes and Booher (2010) emphasized that a dialogue should
be freewheeling; Hester (2006) argued that there must be centers where citizens can
connect with their neighbors; and Hou and Kinoshita (2007) offered the idea that informal
events, tours, and personal conversations can overcome the limits of institutionalized

37

participation. In this study, the data showed that neighbors with less direct access to
the River, despite being optimistic about revitalization, are less inclined to participate
in revitalization efforts. This indicates that they feel disconnected to the River and its
revitalization.
In order to include these community stakeholders, planners and neighborhood groups
should work together to produce events that emphasize safe access to the River. For
residents of Glassell Park and Cypress Park, where the River is separated by railroad
tracks and industrial land uses, this could mean a community event co-sponsored by the
City and the neighborhood council at Rio de Los Angeles State Park that educates people
on the Citys plan to acquire the G-2 Taylor Yard parcel. On the other side of the River,
in Los Feliz, where the 5 freeway limits access to the River, this could mean a similarly
co-sponsored bicycle ride to showcase safe routes to the Rivers bike path. These types
of events educate people about the River, but they also serve to facilitate relationship
building among neighbors, which will lead to the critical social capital needed to build
trust in the River revitalization.
3. Local artists and River governing agencies should work together to create
events that require the re-examination of rules regulating art at the River.
FoLARs Frogspot. Source: CurbedLA

The data collected in this study shows that artists have a strong personal connection to the
River but feel left out of the revitalization effort. The literature underscores the importance
of including stakeholders that have historically been left out of planning processes (Chase
et al. 2008; Innes and Booher 2010). Including marginalized groups, like graffiti artists, will
not only help build public trust, but will also add a valuable perspective that may uncover
problems that would otherwise remain hidden.
To include this stakeholder group, planners should partner with artists to push the limits
on what is allowed within the River channel. This may include something similar to the
2007 Meeting of Styles event that artist ManOne described, or it could take the shape
of art installations within the River right-of-way. These types of programs will require
officials to acknowledge that they prefer a homogeneous, predictable and well-ordered
environment where use and appearance are controlled (Franck & Stevens, 2007).

38

This acknowledgment could lead to commonsense rules and regulations about River
accessibility and diminish the notion that liability trumps all else.
4. Homeless services agencies and River governing agencies should partner
to establish outreach teams that connect people with permanent housing
options.
To be more inclusive of people experiencing homelessness, planners should continue
to forge relationships with social workers at homeless services agencies, such as the
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, Housing for Health, and ASCENCIA. This
connection will help revitalization officials better understand the needs of people living at
the River. From the data, the most important step to house people who live at the River is
the development of River-specific outreach teams that can build relationships with their
clients. People living at the River have different values and needs than people living on
City streets. Social workers trained to conduct outreach to these stakeholders will be the
most effective.
5. River governing agencies should conduct ongoing, face-to-face outreach
with stakeholders along the Glendale Narrows.
This study identified that several stakeholders along the Glendale Narrows stretch of the
River have concerns that the revitalization is being led by developers, real estate agents,
and public agencies that are not being transparent. One stakeholder explained that she
felt like her feedback would be steamrolled. Innes and Booher (2010) argued face-toface and freewheeling dialogue builds trust. With this in mind, staff from public agencies
should develop a plan to conduct outreach in communities along the Glendale Narrows
throughout the duration of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers restoration project that is
informal and face-to-face. River governing agencies should also better communicate
opportunities for public input, such as the LA River Cooperation Committee, which holds a
quarterly meeting that includes officials from the City, the County, and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. This type of intentional outreach will help establish public trust and make
the project more robust in the long term.

39

A mostly unpaved Los Angeles River running through Elysian Valley, also known as Frogtown, in 1940.
Source: USC Libraries/California Historical Society Collection.

REFERENCES
Arroyo, J. C. (2010). Culture in Concrete: Art and the Re-imagination of the Los
Angeles River as Civic Space. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Urban
Planning, Cambridge.
Bogada, A. (2015, December 15). Homeless Angelenos call the riverbank home. What
will happen when El Nio hits? Grist. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from http://grist.org/
cities/homeless-angelenos-call-the-riverbank-home-what-will-happen-when-elnino-hits/
Chase, J., Crawford, M., & John, K. (2008). Everyday Urbanism: Expanded. New York:
The Monacelli Press.
City of Los Angeles (2007). Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan. Los
Angeles, CA: Author.
City of Los Angeles (2016). Los Angeles River Revitalization Milestones. Retrieved
May 6, 2016, from http://www.lariver.org/milestones.
Fox, H. (2013, September 13). Report recommends greening 11 miles of the Los
Angeles River for recreation and wildlife (photos). Southern California Public Radio.
Retrieved May 28, 2016, from http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/09/13/39239/reportrecommends-greening-11-miles-of-the-los-ang/
Franck, K., & Stevens, Q. (2007). Loose Space: Possibility and Diversity in Urban Life.
New York: Routledge.
Gonzalez, S. (2015, August 4). Gentrification comes to the L.A. River. KCRW. Retrieved

41

May 28, 2016, from http://curious.kcrw.com/2015/08/gentrification-comes-to-the-la-river#.Vw0-jPkrKUk

Guanuna, L. (2016, January 6). L.A. Rivers Homeless Find Shelter During El Nio
Storms. KCET. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from https://www.kcet.org/confluence/larivers-homeless-find-shelter-during-el-nino-storms
Gumprecht, B. (1999). The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hester, R. T. (2006). Design for ecological democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hou, J. and Kinoshita, I. (2007) Bridging Community Differences through Informal
Processes: Reexamining Participatory Planning in Seattle and Matsudo. In Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 26(3): 301313.
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to
collaborative rationality for public policy. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Jamison, P., Groves, M., & Weikel, D. (2015, August 7). Architect Frank Gehry is helping
L.A. with its Los Angeles River master plan, but secrecy troubles some. Los Angeles
Times. Retrieved February 2, 2016, from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-meln-la-river-frank-gehry-20150807-story.html
Kreitner, R. (2016, March 10). Will the Los Angeles River Become a Playground for the
Rich? The Nation. Retrieved May 28, 2016, from http://www.thenation.com/article/
will-the-los-angeles-river-become-a-playground-for-the-rich/
McCawley, W. (1996). The first Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles.
Banning, CA: Malki Museum Press.
Nagourney, A. (2015, September 23). Frank Gehry Draws Ire for Joining Los Angeles

42

River Restoration Project. The New York Times. Retrieved March 15, 2016, from http://
www.nytimes.com/2015/09/24/us/frank-gehry-draws-ire-for-joining-los-angelesriver-restoration-project.html?_r=0
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rios, M. (2014). Learning from Informal Practices: Implications for Urban Design. In
V. Mukhija, & A. Loukaitou-Sideris, The Informal American City: Beyond Taco Trucks
and Day Labor. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
Rojas, J. (2015, April 7). Why Urban Planners Should Work With Artists. KCET.
Retrieved February 15, 2016, from https://www.kcet.org/shows/artbound/whyurban-planners-should-work-with-artists
Sahagun, L., & Saillant, C. (2014, May 24). Big plans, and concerns, surround L.A.
Rivers revitalization. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from http://www.
latimes.com/local/la-me-lariver-development-20140524-story.html
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (n.d.). Civil Works Program: Los Angeles River
Ecosystem Restoration Study. Retrieved 28 May 2016 from http://www.spl.
usace.army.mil/Media/FactSheets/tabid/1321/Article/477385/los-angeles-riverecosystem-restoration-study.aspx.

43