Subscribe to our Daily Digest newsletter. Join the more than 9,000 readers who rely on Daily Digest for the latest happenings. Our newsletter is free and arrives in your inbox on weekday mornings. I hope you try it. -- Jesus Sanchez, Publisher
Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.
Error! There was an error processing your request.
The cost to turn 42 acres of contaminated railroad property on the border of Cypress Park and Glassell Park into a "crown jewel" of riverfront revitalization could top $1 billion.
The city paid nearly $60 million in 2017 to buy a chunk of Taylor Yard, a dormant railroad property along the L.A. River, to create a riverside park. That parcel, known as G2, sits to the west of Rio de Los Angeles State Park and downriver from the state-owned Bowtie Parcel. The former railroad properties are now part of the 100-Acre Partnership, which aims to create a giant recreation area by the river.
Today its $1.06 billion, which includes amounts to cover price increases and unforeseen expenses
G2 will help connect the three parcels together in an ambitious - and costly plan. The preferred concept includes creating an island in the L.A. River, constructing a pedestrian and bike bridge to Elysian Valley, a museum and cultural center, wetlands and gardens, trails and paths, viewpoints and other amenities.
The concept will be costly. Just cleaning and removing contaminated soil will cost about $231 million under the latest estimates. LAPD power lines and towers will be moved away from the riverbank and an irrigation system built. It all adds up.
There will be estimated operating costs of at least $6 million a year.
Potential funding sources include county, state and federal grants, bond programs, foundations and private sources.
The report recommends that the City Council approve the project.
209 Monthly Reader Sponsors and Counting!
We are grateful to all those who have made financial contributions to The Eastsider. One-time contributions are always welcome, but we encourage you to join the ranks of our Reader Sponsors who have committed to making a monthly contribution.
Our goal is to have 300 Reader Sponsors by the end of 2023.
Why is this so important? Even a small monthly contribution will create a more stable source of revenue, giving us more confidence to commit to expanding our staff to provide you with more of the community news you can’t find anywhere else.
Join The Eastsider 300
I hope we can count on you. And, if you are not ready for a monthly commitment, you can always make a one-time contribution. Thanks!
—Jesús Sanchez, Publisher
PS: The Eastsider is a private company. Your contribution is NOT tax deductible.
Jesus Sanchez is the publisher of The Eastsider. He has more than 30 years of experience in newspaper and online journalism and has been a staff writer at USA Today and the LA Times. He lives in Echo Park.
Seems to me that not long ago, Burbank, and I think Glendale and maybe even LA, but at least Burbank presented a plan that woud drastically reduce the water in the Los Angeles River. The plan was to divert street runoff and partially cleaned up sewage, clean it up to standards for use for drinking or other purposes.
Being as most of the water you see going down the river, other than after a rain, is not natural to the river, but is that very water, there was concern about the river being more like its natural state, just a trickle other than when there is a winter rain.
I don't see any consideration of this in this planning? How can you be planning for wetlands, and a lake, when there won't even be enough water going down there for the river? (And why are we paying so much money to the planners when they present a plan that doesn't even consider this?)
Would it not be much more sensible and realistic to plan a desert park than an overflowing oasis that will end up more like an arroyo, even if a slightly muddy one? Fantasyland is not going to become reality, even with spending a billion dollars (which, at that price, means we go no deal on the price of that land, in reality it was worth little more than nothing).
You are mistaken about the extent of natural water sources in the Elysian Valley stretch of the river. There are spring waters throughout, which is why the bottom is soft (not "concretized.")
That said, the water reclamation waters from upstream continue to provide a more constant source of water. If the engineering of those water releases were to "pulse" the waters in the manner that nature does, there can be plenty of water up and down the river. We can save and hold water for irrigation some times of day and seasons of year, while also having an ongoing supply for habitat and human access.
There is a key equity question too. Water is life, not only for consumption and irrigation but also for habitat and nature that benefits us all. The water program for the LA River must be done in such a way that waters are distributed up and down the river. Smaller scale cistern storage up and down the river could provide more equitable irrigation reclamation while also minimizing pipe infrastructure. Each input and output needs to be part of a system of controls whose algorithms mimic natural patterns and are also guided by specific equity agreements for the affected river communities.
As far as the plan presented here goes, it suggests some interesting ideas botu
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
Stay on top of the news with our Daily Digest newsletter. Just enter your email address below and hit the Sign Up button. FYI: We don't sell our email lists to protect your privacy.
Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.
Error! There was an error processing your request.
Post a comment as Guest
Report
Watch this discussion.
(2) comments
Seems to me that not long ago, Burbank, and I think Glendale and maybe even LA, but at least Burbank presented a plan that woud drastically reduce the water in the Los Angeles River. The plan was to divert street runoff and partially cleaned up sewage, clean it up to standards for use for drinking or other purposes.
Being as most of the water you see going down the river, other than after a rain, is not natural to the river, but is that very water, there was concern about the river being more like its natural state, just a trickle other than when there is a winter rain.
I don't see any consideration of this in this planning? How can you be planning for wetlands, and a lake, when there won't even be enough water going down there for the river? (And why are we paying so much money to the planners when they present a plan that doesn't even consider this?)
Would it not be much more sensible and realistic to plan a desert park than an overflowing oasis that will end up more like an arroyo, even if a slightly muddy one? Fantasyland is not going to become reality, even with spending a billion dollars (which, at that price, means we go no deal on the price of that land, in reality it was worth little more than nothing).
You are mistaken about the extent of natural water sources in the Elysian Valley stretch of the river. There are spring waters throughout, which is why the bottom is soft (not "concretized.")
That said, the water reclamation waters from upstream continue to provide a more constant source of water. If the engineering of those water releases were to "pulse" the waters in the manner that nature does, there can be plenty of water up and down the river. We can save and hold water for irrigation some times of day and seasons of year, while also having an ongoing supply for habitat and human access.
There is a key equity question too. Water is life, not only for consumption and irrigation but also for habitat and nature that benefits us all. The water program for the LA River must be done in such a way that waters are distributed up and down the river. Smaller scale cistern storage up and down the river could provide more equitable irrigation reclamation while also minimizing pipe infrastructure. Each input and output needs to be part of a system of controls whose algorithms mimic natural patterns and are also guided by specific equity agreements for the affected river communities.
As far as the plan presented here goes, it suggests some interesting ideas botu
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.