I've been very busy with work and unmotivated to post. I'm hoping that the rest of my summer doesn't go by so furiously. Perhaps today is a harbinger of a slower pace to come.
The LA Weekly can often be counted on to produce in depth and insightful criticism of Los Angeles policy and politics. This week's article on Parks and Wrecks is right on target.
Although I don't live in Los Angeles, the distinction between the city of Los Angeles and the greater LA area is lost to people who visit. I've written before about a desire for local green space and where I think it could go, so the LA Weekly article resonated with me.
Not only does Los Angeles (and the Greater LA area by extension) have less parkland per capita than other major cities, we also have more abandoned/unused parks than other major cities. This suggests that one ought to investigate what makes a park successful and the concept of "permeability" is offered up and defined as "well lit, open, accessible." This theme isn't developed directly in the article, but does enter into the picture when local governments talk not only of building parks, but maintaining or rebuilding them - recurring costs that tend to put a damper on politicians' enthusiasm.
The Weekly states that the possibility of failure for the LA River revitalization is high, given history and current politics. The Olmstead brothers' plan for Los Angeles, developed in 1930, was abandoned almost as soon as the ink on it was dry and jurisdictional issues plague any decision making process that involved the LA River.