Well they did that so the city wouldn't wash away during pineapple express events or atmospheric rivers. That isn't a new thing to Los Angeles as I'm sure the climate cult would love for you to believe. There was from the start, periods when the whole ocean would dump itself on the city. Completely flooding the low areas, of which there are many. Have you ever been to Los Angeles during one of these atmospheric rivers? It's not pretty

@@trainwreck420ish These people think with their feelings, not their brain.

That's why they encased it in the first place. The erosion was so severe that it destroyed buildings and infrastructure and the flash floods during thaw was a massive danger to the city. The concrete is there for a reason. You can't just remove it on a whim.

@@WolfHeathen And they haven't. There's careful considerations being made.

Displace a few thousand folks or continue to mismanage precious water in a desperately drought stricken state? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I grew up next to the LA River @ Alondra Blvd. I attended Paramount USD schools from 1st until I graduated HS. (1969). I can't count how many times I saw the river full during and after storms.

They state as much. PBS SoCal actually has a longer 2-part series of this topic, and there's a whole chunk where they talk about how freeways and other projects have displaced people and how they are trying to figure out ways to do this without displacing people along the LA river. Whether or not that thinking is kept if this project is ever actually done is another thing altogether, but there's at least some discussion about avoiding that same type of displacement that pushes out usually the people and communities of color. Here's to hoping for a greener LA River that enriches ALL of the communities along it, without displacing them.

Or a bike lane for a North East city where winter is 6 months a year

That’s because being pro nature has principles and ethics, unlike highway commissioners who only prioritize the rich.

@@crayonburry The rich live in cities and take an elevator to work, The poor people cannot afford to live in cities and must commute in, a 3-hour commute on the train is not going to work for a single mother

"So what we decided to do was get rid of the indigenous population who lived with the river and understood its functioning better than anyone else, then we encased the river in concrete straitjackets, then we built infrastructure and housing to the edge of the straitjackets, and now we declare on tv that it's a shame but our hands are tied and we can't change any of this." This absurd attitude is not going to prevail. Dams are being removed across the United States at the rate of about 60 per year. Rivers are being restored and the results are outstanding. The kind of "thinking" expressed in this video is so old-fashioned that it sounds like flat-earth mentality; it represents not scientific or engineering expertise but the vested interests of the current land-owners and real estate developers in LA who don't want any changes that could impact their investment strategies. But it is clear that throwing any river into a concrete straitjacket is unsustainable and shooting your own city in the foot. Before too long wiser people will lead the city to reorganize LA's rivers and lands, and wealthy landowners will be required to cooperate and yes even sacrifice for the sake of saving the city as a whole. The city is not the private possession of the wealthy; it belongs to all the people and to nature, facts that become more clear as indigenous peoples gain strength and influence. This is neither socialism nor capitalism but rather the requirements of nature.

Concrete doesn't help with floods, It removes natural water catching systems and channelizes the water making it flow faster. Healthy riparian ecosystems in rivers help conserve water during times of drought and protect against floods when water levels are high. Its similar to mangroves protecting against tsunamis. In Indonesia during the 2004 tsunami areas that had healthy mangrove forests where significantly less impacted than areas that didn't. It is worth noting that JUST removing the concrete wouldn't helpful. But removing the concrete would allow for the restoration of these ecosystems. In combination with flood walls this would be a better alternative.

@@matteocastillosensidoni8770 Sorry to bust your ecological ego bubble, BUT mangroves DO NOT protect against tsunamis. What they do is to reduce or even eliminate the erosion caused by the outflow of the water from the wave. They may reduce the amount of damage done by reducing the speed of the incoming wave, but that is probably negligible; especially considering where mangroves develop is not conducive for human development. Now put your thinking cap on and think about your statement about damage impactment.

@@matteocastillosensidoni8770 Did you not watch and listen to the Hydrologist??? First, the river is going to go back to "meandering", meaning it's eventually going to make its own path to flow. What's going to happen when there is a severe flow of water, the surrounding area is going to flood. Second, you can't go back to un-channelizing it unless you displace people. This is what they explained. So, the concrete does help with floods. It creates unimpeded flow. You don't know what you're talking about.

​@@matteocastillosensidoni8770 the painful reality is, we don't need the natural ecosystem on one of the largest cities on the planet. Concrete is unmatched on resisting sudden big flows, like the weather of LA does see very rarely. Any groundwater replacement you would get by removing that tiny strip of concrete (compared to the city) is laughable to the consumption, city already consumes mainly rain water anyways. Keep small green areas for entertainment and lower temperature sure, but trying to mix nature and huge cities too much just ends up hurting both. Cities have to be dense, relatively low distance for transport and economy of scale does wonders for the environment.

They are also currently constructing a park underneath the 6th Street viaduct on both sides of the LA River.

controlling nature is a illusion my frd ! river must have a natural bottom and course , thats how we have evolved over millennia. we want this concrete removed to be able to help water percolate and help recharge groundwater and inturn secure our water availability, also not to mention it cools down neighbourhoods !

Do the world a favor, educate yourself.

@@tweedledee9573 you first.. what good is one lane if the entire neighborhood gets flooded out.. take your own advice... equity like diversity and inclusion is an excuse for tnot trying harder

ditto

@@mondogecko01it’s hilarious that you actually believe that 😂

The LA river was a natural river first. I agree with the rest though.

it's possible diversion retention ponds could be created to syphon off extra flows when the river runs high, but those would have to be made from nearby fields usually used for athletics. That might allow more greening of the channel walls, percolation in the main channel, and more wildlife. But that's a lot of money and work at this point. I would recommend LA encourage porous parking lot asphalt to be used to increase natural percolation where hard parking lots exist now. If there are hundreds of square miles of parking lots, that's a lot more percolation than is occurring currently. it's a start.

@r2dad282 It’s also a start to having all the automobile byproducts entering the water table. Oil, fuels, rubber, coolants, etc.

exactly what it is😮

It actually looked like a river at one time until they concreted everything over and confined the typical runoff to just a channel in the center.

Its the LA culvert pipe of sin

@@Maybe1Someday Poetic.

Rivers are drains, this one saves lives and property. Floods are great, they are what made Egypt prosper, the floods distribute rich soil to the land ,so it can be intense farmed. Bit in a place like LA, the floods wash the people and land away.

Producers know that PBS probably doesn't broadcast anything, that doesn't include a wail about "racism" or "climate change", no matter how spurious.

I find the concrete look depressing but I know why it was made that way, historically. I barely think of it as a river because of how it looks. (And I'm a local by the way.)

@@XSemperIdem5 I always thought it was just a drainage canal in all the movies I saw it in until I learned that it was actually a river. When I learned that, I wanted to slap the people who thought this was a good idea

It is beautiful, although not to us, but they realize how it saves them and their city, from the mass destruction of floods.

@@paulbedichek5177 where I live, we have actual rivers and not sewage canals. You’ll have to forgive me for not appreciating this ecological disaster that my fellow Caucasians call “progress”

1. People leave to close and would need to be moved. 2. Having a section that is concrete followed by green space means when it rains hard, the flood water will race down the concrete path then floos the greenspace at a slower pace causing more hazardous flooding in the areas directly adjacent to the green space. The entire river is missing a floodplain to handle that. You probably could piece meal parts of it but you wold be designing the space to account for that rather than make the best space. Just providing context. No hostility in my comment.

I lived off los Feliz blvd, there were times the river looked like it would overflow, billions and billions of gallons of water travel at high rates of speed during storms. An awesome powerful sight to see.

It almost overflowed this winter!

@@DirtygardenCA One of the things many people don't seem to understand is that over 90% of LA county is either paved or under a building, thus, virtually all of the rain that falls runs off into the ocean, via the LA river.

Which means they need to figure out a way to capture all that water and refill the aquifers.

@@vernalc2449 That isn't even remotely possible. You would need to be able to capture millions of gallons per second during events that happen far less than 0.01% of the time. LA is essentially a desert region. The LA river is dry 99.9% of the time, except for a small channel in the center that always has watter. I rode my bike to the ocean many times down that riverbed, er, flood control channel.

The LA river was never the Boise river not even in 1700.

At the cost of displacing thousands in a state where a starter home is nearly 3/4s of a million dollars

Look at McArthur Park Gangs and homeless meth addicts stop gentrification. It's working

and return to agricultural production

Think about the poor oil companies 😢😢😢

Yeah those side streets need way more cars.

​@@yeomanadventures1549less cars more public transit

@@lawrence-yx1ew less cars, less freeways, more bike-able area, more walkable area, more public transportation. More parks. More gardens.

No. Dude, thats the point of the LA river being concrete and straightened - so the water has no impediments and can flood the area.

I like the problem solving. The issue would be that the catchment would be in the center of a riverbed. There would be fine silt patches at the bottom but they would get washed away every time there is a big rain event. I'm sure some things might be able to grow every now and then but it's still a pile of silt in a almost empty riverbed with no access to soil or groundwater due to the impermeable concrete bottom.

@@Firefenex1996 True true, it’s such a nuanced situation:/ It’s not a perfect solution- but what if the structures were wave shaped 🌊 ( so they have a curve ) maybe that’d help the silt to stay a bit longer or having some larger rocks down there to trap sediment:)) Not sure which method would be best/if either would work- but I’d love to see the scientists experiment a bit more before giving up on the project o7

@@Firefenex1996 - Very astute. When I was a kid the LA river did have a sand/silt bottom (before it was concreted) and it did have trees and scrub brush growing with the requisite wildlife, but as you said, every large storm washed most of it away to damn up at the tidal basin creating a perpetual need to dredge. Hope planners consider that when/if they decide to revert to what was.

new reservoirs upstream are the answer, but good luck getting that past the local environmental approval process.

Mostly not true. Most people didn't live near the river because it would flood on a regular basis. This means that the poorest people are the ones who lived in the flood plain. And minorities were a larger percentage of the poor. The LA River didn't really have a set path. It would change every time it flooded depending on how much it rained. That's why they channeled it with concrete.

Or bring it into the 21st century by improving past infrastructure mistakes.

Gehry'a group has been studying this for several years now and proposed some initial design solutions, but it looks he has walked those back as he's learning more about the complexities of this project. I'm sure he appreciates the challenge.

@@mrxman581 I very much agree

As soon as someone starts using public funds to help people, the brigades screaming "socialism" will start showing their faces. Those same people most likely travel publicly funded roads and received public education, but that's not the same, I guess.

Don't forget about the Billion+ $USD being wasted on a 'High-Speed' train to SF, a train that most people wouldn't be able to afford to ride or have the need to do so.

@@WarHawk- Problem with HSR is the state of which its proposed. California you need a car to get around plain and simple. so even if you could do 95% of your trip by rail, what about that last 5%?. and its that last 5% that matters most because walking isnt really an option in a place designed for automobile commute. Im not against rail, but the fact is its not a sound solution in at least some of the places it proposed. What truly needed is the ultra budge commute vehicle. We are in a time where greed inflation and cost has made the nation into a third world country. and i seriously mean that. look at soooo many states and take a not so deep dive and youl be shocked at what you see. all this due to government favoring the rich, and continually thinking that a tickle down effect will be enough for the masses. such things never work.

No thats not how this works my guy.

That won't work.

you do realize everywhere beavers go....they cause floods

Damming a river means you are creating a reservoir (man made lake) behind it.