Metro Vancouver Parks & Green Space

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

- snip -

What that really means is that they had no idea how to manage water other than burying or draining it and putting civilization on top. Note that not everybody was on board with the Aqueduct (it killed Owens Valley as a farming community), nor was it necessarily well-executed (the collapse of the St Francis dam, part of the Aqueduct, killed 400+ people and forced the construction of a second aqueduct to make the first one work). At least they didn't kill a lake with that one?

Likewise, they had no idea how to manage the Lower Mainland's water other than dumping garbage into it and then hiding it in pipes when that started to stink. I wouldn't call Sumas "done right," not when BC is about to spend another billion (edit: $2.8 billion) on pumps and dikes to make sure the lake stays gone.

Teddy Roosevelt would take exception to that last statement. Some people who aren't Greenpeace or the Sierra Club want to balance nature with modernity and GDP; by your logic, "conservative conservation" would keep the tennis court. One little wetland which isn't doubling as a splash pool and beer can repository is hardly the end of the world.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

What that really means is that they had no idea how to manage water other than burying or draining it and putting civilization on top. Note that not everybody was on board with the Aqueduct (it killed Owens Valley as a farming community), nor was it necessarily well-executed (the collapse of the St Francis dam, part of the Aqueduct, killed 400+ people and forced the construction of a second aqueduct to make the first one work). At least they didn't kill a lake with that one?

Likewise, they had no idea how to manage the Lower Mainland's water other than dumping garbage into it and then hiding it in pipes when that started to stink. I wouldn't call Sumas "channeled," not when BC is about to spend another billion on pumps and dikes to make sure the lake stays gone.

Teddy Roosevelt would take exception to that last statement. Some people who aren't Greenpeace or the Sierra Club want to balance nature with modernity and GDP; by your logic, "conservative conservation" would keep the tennis court. One little habitat which isn't doubling as a splash pool and beer can repository isn't the end of the world.

Sorry but you're not making any good points against channelling the LA River. Nowadays we have statistical methods and computer models to see what works and what doesn't but in the past they needed brute force approaches. We have better methods today, but the goals remain the same. Protect people and improve their lives and standard of living. Reversing the policies of the past is not good if it affects those priorities.

And bear in mind, modern conservationists would blow a gasket if Roosevelt was in power today. To quote him, the point of conservation is "to make the forest produce the largest amount of whatever crop or service will be most useful, and keep on producing it for generation after generation of men and trees."

Do with that quote what you will. Sustainability is great and I support it, but it doesn't mean not touching nature ever.

[Migrant_Coconut]

You're not making any good points about its usefulness. Seeing as they're tearing it down, and it caused more deadly floods than it solved, it sure sounds like the only good thing that came out of it was a James Cameron movie.

Missing the point: progressive conservation is a thing. We simply disagree on what that looks like.

Originally Posted by chowhou

Sustainability is great I and support it.

So do I.

Sometimes you touch nature, sometimes you leave it alone. It's not exclusively just one of those. Breaching the dike at Iona makes accessibility harder for humans but easier for animals and increases total wildlife. Staying 400m away from whales makes it harder to take a selfie, but makes sure the whales are relatively happy for future tourists.

Want to make New Brighton Park really great for people? Get the Parks Board (or its replacement) to spend some money on the broke-ass soccer field/beaches/dog park next to the habitat.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

You're not making any good points about its usefulness. Seeing as they're tearing it down, and it caused more deadly floods than it solved, it sure sounds like the only good thing that came out of it was a James Cameron movie.

This is demonstrably false; The LA river channeling is credited with preventing widescale flooding in the 1969 and 2005 record rainy seasons. The fact that LA used to have deadly floods every couple of decades, but don't anymore should speak to its effectiveness.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Deadly floods like this one and this one (both after the Aqueduct's completion)? The stupid thing also failed in 1928 (killing 400+ people), 1971, and last year in 2023. SoCal clearly doesn't feel like they're losing anything by rewilding it.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Deadly floods like this one and this one (both after the Aqueduct's completion)? The stupid thing also failed in 1928 (killing 400+ people), 1971, and last year in 2023. SoCal clearly doesn't feel like they're losing anything by rewilding it.

Firstly, it's completely inaccurate to say that the 1938 flood was after channelling. They had begun, but it was only after the 1938 flood that they took it seriously. I literally linked you this earlier. They only fully completed the project in 1960.

Secondly, it's completely inaccurate to say that the LA River "failed" last year. In fact, by all measures the LA river channel was a huge success last year. All of California was put under a state of emergency, yet LA was left relatively untouched.

According to recent city plans, they decided in 2022 that removing the LA river channeling is not the way forward and it's going to remain the silent protector of LA. A dark knight, if you will.

Sorry! Humans win again.

(Also I can't find a single source claiming the LA river failed in 1971.)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

- snip -

Flooding in Union Station and sewage in Compton, among other areas (I'll ignore the damage in the Hollywood area since the Aqueduct can't possibly fix any of that). I'd say the river is not as good as its job as you'd think.

Not sure why we're talking about "wins" and "losses." By your logic, everybody wins with a Chongyyecheon instead of a glorified storm drain.
Check the article again. It's not being kept because it's LA's Batman; it's being kept because rewilding is possible, but the subsequent widening would require too many sacrifices at the moment, so they're settling for Sepulveda, Elysian Valley and Long Beach instead. The rest can come later if changes allow for it.

If we're going to argue Man v. Nature, start with Hetch-Hetchy - there's a lot more arguments for than against with that one. The LA River? Sooner or later the whole thing's going the same way as the viaducts; heck, north of the I-5, it's already pretty green.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Flooding in Union Station and sewage in Compton, among other areas (I'll ignore the damage in the Hollywood area since the Aqueduct can't possibly fix any of that). I'd say the river is not as good as its job as you'd think.

Respectfully, I don't think it makes much sense to say the LA river does a poor job at keeping the Union Station basement free of water, nor does it make sense to say that Compton flooded with sewage when your own article says, "Most of the untreated sewage went into a channel leading to the Pacific Ocean and the city closed a 7-mile (11.27-kilometers) stretch of Long Beach to recreational swimming". Sounds like channeling rivers does something. Hm. I feel like I'm arguing with a "building housing doesn't make housing cheaper, look housing prices are still going up even though we're building" person right now. Obviously the LA River doesn't prevent all flooding in all basements across LA, but LA used to have fatalities and hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage every few years from flooding. You can't argue that that didn't stop after the river was channeled.

Not sure why we're talking about "wins" and "losses." By your logic, everybody wins with a Chongyyecheon instead of a glorified storm drain.
Check the article again. It's not being kept because it's LA's Batman; it's being kept because rewilding is possible, but the subsequent widening would require too many sacrifices at the moment, so they're settling for Sepulveda, Elysian Valley and Long Beach instead. The rest can come later if changes allow for it.

Then we agree! As I've said this entire time, a Cheonggyecheon style daylighting is the best way to go. You manage floods during the bad times, and you give people a charming walkable recreational area during the good times. Win-win as you say!

If we're going to argue Man v. Nature, start with Hetch-Hetchy - there's a lot more arguments for than against with that one. The LA River? Sooner or later the whole thing's going the same way as the viaducts; heck, north of the I-5, it's already pretty green.

The LA River, if city engineers are able to fight off the environmental populism (people know better than the engineers!), is here to stay. Make it greener, for sure! But don't tear down safety infrastructure and put people's lives in danger to say you made something greener. Notice how your "north of the I-5" image still has the LA River channeled, they just let plants grow in the channel (which may get flushed away in a storm). Chongyyecheon is the same.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

- snip -

Respectfully, I fail to see how the LA River itself is the cause of said non-catastrophes, or how its removal will endanger Greater Los Angeles. You're replacing a concrete ditch with a non-concrete ditch. It's the exact same flow rate with both ditches. What we're arguing over is the spillway - seems like all the dams and bypasses constructed to supplement it are doing the real work. One such dam's failure even caused a catastrophe in itself!

According to your engineers, the only obstacle to replacement is the fact that a non-concrete ditch would have to be slightly wider, and that means cutting into existing development; if you remove the development (e.g. Taylor Yard), then suddenly replacement is possible, and engineers and environmentalists alike can celebrate - the only losers are the NIMBYs.

[chowhou]

I kindly reject the notion of tearing down developments and cities for the sake plants and animals, thanks.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I reject the notion of blocking a great amenity for both humans and nature alike for the sake of a few warehouses and homeowners, thanks. You of all people should be anti-sprawl and anti-entrenchment.

The movie studios can't move, the railways can't move, the police department and transit facilities can't move... everything else can, if LA ever decides to build up instead of out.

[jollyburger]

Bloedel Conservatory to close for 2 months for repairs

Vancouver’s tropical paradise is set to temporarily close so the city can make some much-needed updates.

Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation says the Bloedel Conservatory will close its doors to the public on Oct. 28 while it upgrades accessibility in the attraction.

“The current pathways within the Conservatory are past their lifespan, and will undergo full reconstruction. In addition, certain areas will be expanded to enhance accessibility,” the Park Board shared Friday.

The renovation project is slated to take about two months, with the conservatory reopening to the public in January 2025.

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2024/0...osing-repairs/