Concrete Consequences: Unpacking the Revitalisation of the Los Angeles River

Zoë Bax [Email]

The revitalisation of the Los Angeles River, a concrete-encased urban waterway, has become a focal point for debates around urban development, ecology, and socio-political impacts. This paper examines the consequences of revitalisation efforts through the lens of materiality, aesthetics, and community implications. It begins by exploring how the river’s transformation into a concrete channel has shaped perceptions of it as lifeless and undesirable, tracing the historical and social factors that underpin these views. By analysing master plans and renderings for revitalisation, the study highlights how proposed interventions reflect and reinforce these perceptions, prioritising plant and human life deemed suitable for urban spaces while marginalising existing communities and uses. Drawing from scholars of new materialism and Actor-Network Theory, the paper argues for a reimagining of concrete as a dynamic material intertwined with diverse life forms, challenging the binary of lifelessness versus vitality. This perspective emphasises the need for inclusive urban development that considers the lives and networks already supported by the river. Ultimately, the paper calls for a critical evaluation of how materials and appearances influence urban revitalisation narratives, with implications for fostering equitable and sustainable urban futures.

Introduction

Stretching 51 miles through Los Angeles County, California, is a river that, until recently, had largely been forgotten. Once a free-flowing river, home to the Indigenous Tongva people, it was transformed by a series of flood control measures following major floods in the 1930s. These interventions deepened, widened, and encased the river in concrete for most of its length; reducing its appearance in the often dry months, to a trickle of water across a concrete bed. This has not only altered the river's ecology but also its perception among the public. While many residents had forgotten — or chosen to ignore — the river for much of the period after its concrete transformation, it was rediscovered by activists in the 1980s (Desfor and Keil 2000, 15). The riparian zone has since been the site of contested urban and ecological revitalisation efforts as people fight to ‘rescue’ the river that is now perceived by many as a “scar” on the landscape (Kimmelman 2022, par.6). These efforts often use terminology such as “restore,” “revitalise,” and “remake” and can be framed as bringing the river “back to life” — invoking ideas of death, life, and rebirth (Di Palma and Robinson 2018, par.4; Kimmelman 2022, par.17). I am interested in these ideas and their implications, considering that the river has supported life that lives along it and serves as a refuge for unhoused people. What does it mean to bring the Los Angeles River “back to life”? Why is the river perceived as lifeless? And, what are the consequences of these perceptions? These are the central questions I seek to explore.

I will first examine how the river’s negative portrayal contributes to it being perceived as lifeless, with a focus on concrete's qualities in shaping these perceptions. To do so, I will draw on existing discourse and studies involving concrete infrastructure perceptions. I will then study how these perceptions influence plans to bring the river “back to life” through examining the revitalisation master plans’ visual presentations. I will further consider the connection of these plans to "politics of appearance" and their potential ramifications on existing communities (Chio 2014, 134-71). Lastly, I will draw on discussions in new materialism — a line of scholarship that celebrates the materiality of our world and its nonhuman actors — to propose alternative ways of considering the river and its concrete bed. Through this approach, I aim to explore the significant role that materials and appearances play in our built environment, highlighting how they influence outcomes and social transformations. This work builds upon previous studies that recognise the symbolic, affective, aesthetic, and social dimensions of urban infrastructures (Amin 2014; Harvey and Knox 2012; Elinoff 2017), emphasising how these dimensions affect urban development.

Before I delve into this exploration, it is important to note that I am not discounting that there are potential benefits of the river revitalisation initiatives. Nor am I disregarding that the earlier transformation of the river through flood control measures has had adverse environmental and social impacts. The complexity of the Los Angeles River revitalisation extends beyond the scope of this piece, encompassing many influential factors, some of which are positive. My intent in focusing on the influence of materials and appearances is to address gaps in the existing discourse surrounding the river’s revitalisation. In doing so, I argue that concrete has historically contributed to perceptions of a lifeless river, thereby influencing revitalisation initiatives. As these initiatives are likely to affect the various forms of life that now surround the river, I argue for a deeper awareness of the role materials play in our built environment; how we perceive and discuss them can have implications. Considering a material as lifeless — despite its impact on certain life forms — can overlook the current lives entangled in it, leading to the prioritisation of some lives over others. By reframing our perceptions of materials, we can foster a more inclusive approach to urban development that considers all forms of life.

Perceptions of a lifeless river

“At first glance, the river’s landscape reads like a sad extension of down town misery, forgotten quarters, past industrial glory and ‘pathological’ urbanity.” (Desfor and Keil 2000, 6)

As illustrated in Desfor and Keil’s description, the Los Angeles River has been framed in a negative light, contributing to perceptions of it as a landscape lacking vitality. After the river was channelled, it became a dumping ground — conditions that reinforced its perception as a neglected landscape, no longer an asset but a “sewer” (Kimmelman 2022, par.6; Desfor and Keil 2000, 16). It was a place of industry, railways, and crime with much of the river inaccessible to the public. As a result, it was seen as an undesirable location and minority communities — often subjects of redlining — came to inhabit its surrounding areas (Kimmelman 2022, par.6). This image of the river as unwanted land was further exacerbated during the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, when a temporary ‘tent city’ was created on the river bank to conceal the presence of unhoused people in the city (Gandy 2006, 142). The riparian zone is additionally perceived as underutilised, seen by some as serving a single purpose for flood control — although this is a function often forgotten given the river’s typically dry channels (Desfor and Keil 2000, 15). Together, these elements portray the Los Angeles River as a monument to urban failures and untapped potential. While the uses described above could be considered ways in which the river supports life, these have not aligned with many residents’ and the government’s visions of vitality, leading to ideas that the river is in need of revitalising.

Concrete looms large in these discussions surrounding the river. It often carries negative connotations — a river “entombed” in concrete — which contribute to its perception as lifeless (Kimmelman 2022, par.5). This perception of concrete rendering the river lifeless is understandable in the context of its environmental impact. Plant and animal life has significantly reduced in most segments except those with a soft bottom. Four fish species, types of frogs, and the only turtle species have been eradicated. Water quality is bad, and algae sparse (Gumprecht 1997, 473). Segments like Willow Street Estuary that are free from concrete and support plant and animal life, are often held up as models of what the river could be (Kimmelman 2022, par.19). This supports the perception that what makes the river vital are these plant and animal life forms, freed from the oppressive weight of concrete.

Beyond its environmental impact, I posit that concrete can also come to possess symbolic dimensions and carry connotations that can contribute to ideas of lifelessness. To better understand how concrete can come to be symbolic, I will discuss two studies by anthropologists of concrete infrastructure that illustrate this. Eli Elinoff’s (2017) study Concrete and Corruption, examines the relationship between concrete infrastructure projects in Thailand and the perceptions and accusations of corruption that often accompany them. Concrete construction in Thailand is intertwined with political power — it is entangled in partnerships between the monarchy, state, and private investors, and has been used to stimulate the economy, enable politician profits, and consolidate power (589, 591). Concrete has thus come to symbolise state power and the corruption that permeates it; its infrastructure provides tangible and visible examples of the misuses of power that “violently remake the land” (590, 593). Although concrete is a tool of state power, it can be used against it. In a country with powerful defamation laws, it is difficult to speak openly about corruption. Concrete has thus become a medium through which citizens can speculate and critique the state (589-590). Penelope Harvey’s (2010) study Cementing Relations, also considers the relationship between concrete and state power in exploring how concrete has transformed infrastructure in provincial Peru. Local officials leveraging concrete’s symbolic connotations of “better, more civilised ways of living” to enhance their credibility, have fostered the spread of concrete into rural towns, transforming their infrastructure (par.7). Thus, in addition to concrete symbolising modernity in Peru — which has been welcomed by some citizens — it has come to symbolise state power and care through its presence (par.34). This is, however, an “unstable power” where the promises symbolised by concrete often fall short (par.20). Both studies illustrate how concrete can mediate state and citizen relations, emerging as not only a building material but a symbol of these relationships.

This symbolism of concrete, as state and man power exerted over land, shares similarities with concrete’s connotations in the context of the Los Angeles River. The river’s often barren concrete bed has drawn comparisons to freeways and even an “Orwellian security landscape” (Gumprecht 1997, 471; Desfor and Keil 2000, 20), and has been described as a “concrete prison” (Macfarlane et al. 2021). This highlights how concrete can carry connotations of man-made dominance over natural landscapes, evoking a degree of artificiality that can contribute to perceptions of lifelessness. Connotations of artificiality are particularly pertinent in Los Angeles — a city ruled by cars and freeways. Concrete can thus reinforce the perception that “everything in Los Angeles has been artificially constructed”(Gandy 2006, 141). Similarly to what Elinoff (2017) observed in Thailand, the concrete river can become a mechanism for public critique of the city’s prioritisation of artificial structures over natural environments (Gandy 2006, 142-143). It has come to embody issues with Los Angeles as a whole, which can be leveraged by those working on the revitalisation effort. When the vitality of plants and animals is used as the primary measure of “life,” concrete’s connotations of artificiality and man-made domination in Los Angeles can lead to perceptions of lifelessness.

While I acknowledge that the introduction of concrete to the Los Angeles River has eradicated certain forms of life, I challenge the notion that it has rendered the river completely devoid of vitality. I will later explore how we can see the concrete river as both lively and supporting life through ideas that have emerged in new materialism and non-human agency; but first, I will examine how these existing perceptions of the river and its concrete bed have influenced revitalisation plans.

Plans for revitalisation

Ideas for revitalising the river have emerged since the 1980s, evolving along two related yet distinct paths. Environmentalists, the initial advocates, have focused on restoring a ‘natural’ river ecosystem and greening the surrounding area through parks and trails (Gumprecht 1997, 476; Gandy 2006, 143). This advocacy has influenced master plans at both the City (2007) and County (2022) levels; the latest of which was approved by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in June 2022 (Kimmelman 2022, par.10). These master plans consider environmental concerns, but stop short of complete habitat restoration (Los Angeles County 2022, 175-184). They further expand their scope to include social and urban goals: revitalising human activity along the river (163,191,209). While there are notable differences between the approaches detailed in environmentalist proposals and those in the City and County master plans, both are shaped by the aforementioned negative perceptions of the river and its concrete. Environmentalists clearly perceive the concrete as a lifeless barrier to the river's vitality, as evidenced in their proposals to remove it (Kimmelman 2022, par.8). The City and County plans reflect the perception that the river’s current usage does not constitute a vital landscape, proposing new, more consumable, uses (Los Angeles County 2022, 279). These plans also reveal an underlying perception of concrete as hindering vitality, evident in their greening initiatives and the way concrete itself is treated. We can observe these ideas in the master plans’ renderings. Beyond neutral visualisations of proposals, renderings can serve as advertisements that reflect — and may even shape — ideas on what constitutes appropriate and valuable uses of space (Chio 2017, 419, 434). In the case of the Los Angeles River, the master plans’ renderings can implicitly suggest which forms of life are desired and deemed appropriate to inhabit the revitalised riparian zone.

Figures 4-7: Renderings from the City of Los Angeles' 2007 ‘River Revitalization Master Plan’. Source: Wenk Associates, Civitas, Mia Lehrer + Associates. 2007. https://www.wenkla.com/projects/los-angeles-river-revitalization

These images indicate how the perception of concrete as rendering the river lifeless has influenced revitalisation plans. The concrete bed is reduced in places and in the areas that it remains, its appearance is softened through the interspersion of greenery. The concrete is further transformed from a steep slope to a terraced one, inviting people to dwell in the space and softening its industrial connotations. We can see how beautification strategies are being implemented here. In these visions, plant lives are seen as integral to making a riparian zone vital. The emphasis on families, couples enjoying leisure activities, and controlled art displays define the envisioned "appropriate" human life.

Figures 8-11: Renderings from Los Angeles County’s 2022 ‘River Master Plan’. Source: Geosyntec, OLIN, and Gehry Partners, LLP. 2022. In LA River Master Plan. Prepared by Geosyntec, OLIN, and Gehry Partners LLP, 338-367. https://pw.lacounty.gov/uploads/swp/LARiverMasterPlan-FINAL-DIGITAL-COMPRESSED.pdf

These images reflect perceptions that the river's current usage does not create a vital landscape. The 2022 Master Plan builds on previous efforts, giving greater consideration to existing communities, but still introduces new uses for the riparian zone — implying perceptions of underutilisation in its current state. As with the 2007 Master Plan, it depicts families walking and cycling, but now also includes new elements of pavilions and cafes. People are shown appreciating the interspersed plant life that helps to soften the concrete. Not pictured in the renderings but included in the 2022 Master Plan are additional activities including art installations, cultural amenities, and educational opportunities. These activities, alongside the integration of plant and animal life, demonstrate what makes the riparian zone vital, fostered by ecological and infrastructural interventions.

The master plans’ renderings demonstrate a particular conception of what a vital riparian zone looks like, influenced by the desire to transform the river's current aesthetic and functional characteristics, perceived as lacking in vitality. In pursuing this vision, the renderings dismiss some existing users and uses of the river, such as local fishermen (Tolle 2022, par.15), graffiti artists producing less controllable forms of art (Kocisky 2022, 653), unhoused individuals seeking shelter, and the river's role in protecting residents from floods. While the people shown in the renderings may represent current residents, as I’ll later discuss, the revitalisation initiatives depicted could potentially displace these residents from their environment. This selective vision of vitality, if aligned with certain publics’ perceptions, may further lead to economic benefits for Los Angeles but adversely impact existing communities. Examining these dynamics through the lens of the “politics of appearance” (Chio 2014, 134-71) and the “economy of appearances” (Tsing 2001, 118) can illuminate how these economic benefits might materialise.

The effects of appearances

Anthropologists Jenny Chio (2017, 2014) and Anna Tsing (2001) have explored the power of appearances in shaping economic and social realities. Chio’s concept of the “politics of appearance,” developed through ethnographic work on ethnic tourism in China, explores how the construction and promotion of specific appearances for sites has social effects on locals (2014, 136). Chio suggests that the visual appearances of places are integral to their economic success, and that desired appearances, when promoted through mechanisms like architectural renderings, can project and reinforce specific social ideas (2017, 419-420). Anna Tsing’s (2001) concept of the “economy of appearances,” developed through an examination of the Bre-X mining scam, explores how appearances are necessary to garner financial investment (118). Tsing sees this occurring through an interplay of economic and dramatic performance — by crafting the appearance of economic success and amplifying the drama that surrounds it, actual investment is attracted (ibid). This is indicative of how entities, from companies to counties, must present their projects in such a way that capital can be attracted. This involves creating a compelling vision of the future that is aligned with certain publics’ conceptions of prosperity and vitality.

This relates to the Los Angeles River revitalisation in that the County and City have pushed — through mechanisms like renderings — appearances of a revitalised river that align with certain demographics’ ideas of what constitutes a liveable space. By doing so, they can gain economically from urban regeneration, as when spaces are increasingly recognised as "liveable" by specific demographics, they can attract development and inflate property values (Kim 2017, 144). While these appearances of liveability may indeed support various life forms and are often intended to do so, it's important to recognise their dual function as tools for economic growth. According to Kim's (2017) ethnographic research on the river revitalisation, efforts such as greening, while environmentally beneficial, also serve economic objectives by enhancing the area's aesthetic appeal under the guise of sustainability and conservation (143, 145). Although these revitalisation initiatives may have some positive impacts on existing communities, the potential for them to result in increased development and property values can additionally lead to adverse effects on these communities.

These adverse effects, in the form of gentrification, are the topic of much discussion surrounding the river revitalisation. Research has shown how environmental aesthetics, influenced by ideas of beautification and sustainability goals, can contribute to the erasure of existing communities (Foster 2009; Safransky 2014; as cited in Kocisky 2022, 649). The river revitalisation initiatives and their related greening of the riparian zone, have the potential to induce an increase in property values, leading to ‘green gentrification’ that could displace existing communities, a large portion of who are economically vulnerable (Kimmelman 2022, par.11; Kim 2017, 142). Historical data supports this concern, indicating that real estate transactions in affected areas typically rise following announcements of revitalisation plans for the river (Kim 2017, 234). The 2022 Master Plan seeks to address these concerns by recommending policies such as rent controls and affordable housing, and it has made efforts to be more inclusive by engaging the existing community in the planning process. However, these policies are only recommendations, not requirements, as actual implementation depends on municipal decisions (Kimmelman 2022, par.39). A land bank motion was passed in association with the 2022 Master Plan but this is only one of many steps to addressing gentrification risks (Marrero 2022).

Perceiving the Los Angeles River as lifeless has put us in a challenging position. By assuming that the river lacks vitality and is thus in need of revitalising, we risk overlooking the existing life it supports. While green gentrification is a complex issue, I believe that reframing our perceptions of the river, particularly the role of concrete in these perceptions, could be a constructive first step in preventing the dismissal of existing life forms. To give us a framework for understanding how the concrete river could be seen as both lively and supporting life, I turn to discussions in new materialism and the agency of non-humans.

Reframing perceptions

New materialism is a line of scholarship that embraces the interconnectivity of all entities — a departure from historical dualities including subject and object, nature and culture, human and non-human (Conty 2018, 74). Scholars associated with new materialism, despite varying perspectives, generally “celebrate the materiality of our world and its nonhuman actors'' (ibid). One perspective that can be used to see the liveliness of materials comes from anthropologist Tim Ingold. Ingold (2012) sees materials as always in a process of “becoming” and having “histories” — in that they transform through interactions with other entities (434-435). He argues for studies of the material world to see things, like our concrete river, not as objects — which implies a finished product — but as “a sample of material” that is always capable of growth and transformation (435). Philosopher and anthropologist Bruno Latour, whose work has influenced some approaches in new materialism, offers another perspective valuing non-human entities that may help us understand how our concrete river can support life. Latour, as a proponent and developer of Actor-Network Theory (ANT), proposes a theory of agency that considers both humans and non-humans as actors. These actors connect as heterogeneous networks that influence the social (2005, 10, 43-45). Networks are considered heterogeneous in that they can be constituted of humans, objects, materials, and ideas (Candea 2018, 215). Non-humans are thus considered able to act and effect outcomes through their place in these networks (ibid).

While these perspectives are aligned in their embrace of non-humans, they exhibit some fundamental differences in their conceptions of agency and the non-human elements they consider. Ingold (2012) sees things as lively because of the flows of materials and life forces that they are entangled with (428). He critiques ANT for neglecting these flows and forces, seeing ANT’s conception of non-human agency needing to arise because things have been “deadened” in the removal of these flows (2010, 7). For Ingold, “things move and grow because they are alive, not because they have agency” (ibid). He is focused on a thing’s process of “becoming”, further taking issue with ANT’s network of defined entities (2012, 437).

In the context of the Los Angeles River, I find it helpful to view concrete as an actor with effects, so long as we extend ANT to consider the life forces it’s engaged with. In doing so, we can see how concrete’s material qualities and network enable it to act, affecting water flow and nearby residents. Concrete has an initial malleability that becomes solid, making it optimal for taming environments (Harvey 2010, par.3). As it is employed in the river, it can control water flow during heavy rains, affecting nearby residents in protecting them from floods. This enabled the city of Los Angeles to develop (Kimmelman 2022, par.6). As a successful agent, concrete’s agency has become less visible as we take its effects for granted. In acknowledging its agency and tracing its associations (Latour 2005, 1), we can reveal the network of humans and non-humans it supports, reminding us not to dismiss the lives entangled with it.

While Tim Ingold’s perspective has a different conception of agency, I find it offers a valuable lens in seeing things as “becoming” rather than defined. In considering the river’s concrete as in a continual process of becoming, we can see how its transformations have both supported and can be signs of supporting life forms. Elinoff (2017) highlights this concept, describing how concrete, as an obdurate thing, can undergo transformation into other things with new purposes (594). He observed this in concrete pillars being used by graffiti artists, and similarly, the river’s concrete has undergone transformation as a canvas for graffiti and film artists (Kocisky 2022, 653). Moreover, as slabs become exposed in the river, they have emerged as platforms for musicians and fishermen (see fig.14).`These perspectives help us move beyond seeing concrete as rendering the river completely lifeless.

Conclusion

Plans to bring the Los Angeles River “back to life” demonstrate a complex interplay of environmental, social, and economic concerns. While the desire to bring life to a landscape perceived as neglected may have good intentions, it is important we reflect on the origins of these perceptions and our related motivations. There is reason to argue that encasing the river in concrete should not have been the flood control measure selected almost a century ago. However, as it is the reality we have since lived in, we need to challenge perceptions of a lifeless river and concrete as a lifeless contributor. We need to adopt a broader perspective that recognises concrete’s role within a complex network of life forms to ensure we do not dismiss the current lives entangled with it. I hope this essay has encouraged you to see materials as active contributors in the built environment. By understanding the diverse impacts of materials like concrete, we can foster a more inclusive approach to urban development that considers all forms of life entangled with the materials of our built environment.

References

Amin, Ash. 2014. “Lively Infrastructure.” Theory, Culture & Society, 31 (7-8): 137-161. https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1177/0263276414548490

Bennett, Jane. 2010. “Thing-Power.” In Political Matter: Technoscience, Democracy, and Public Life, edited by Bruce Braun and Sarah J. Whatmore, 35-62. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Candea, Matei. 2018. “No actor, no network, no theory: Bruno Latour’s anthropology of the moderns.” In Schools and Styles of Anthropological Theory, 209–223. London: Routledge. https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.4324/9781315388267

Chio, Jenny. 2017. “Rendering rural modernity: Spectacle and power in a Chinese ethnic tourism village.” Critique of Anthropology, 37 (4): 418-439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X17735368

Chio, Jenny. 2014. “‘TAKE A PICTURE WITH US’: The Politics of Appearance.” In A Landscape of Travel: The Work of Tourism in Rural Ethnic China, 133–72. Seattle: University of Washington Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvbtzm3w.11

Conty, Arianne. F. 2018. “The Politics of Nature: New Materialist Responses to the Anthropocene.” Theory, Culture & Society, 35(7-8): 73-96. https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1177/0263276418802891

Desfor, Gene, and Roger Keil. 2000. “Every River Tells a Story: The Don River (Toronto) and the Los Angeles River (Los Angeles) as Articulating Landscapes”. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 2 (1): 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/738552351

Di Palma, Vittoria, and Alexander Robinson. 2018. “Willful Waters”. Places Journal, May 2018. https://doi.org/10.22269/180508

Elinoff, Eli. 2017. “Concrete and Corruption”. City 21 (5): 587–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2017.1374778

Foster, Jennifer. 2009. “Environmental Aesthetics, Ecological Action and Social Justice”. In Emotion, Place and Culture, edited by Joyce Davidson, Mick Smith, Laura Cameron, and Liz Bondi, 97-114. London: Routledge.

Gandy, Matthew. 2006. “Riparian Anomie: Reflections on the Los Angeles River”. Landscape Research, 31 (2): 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600638471

Gumprecht, Blake. 1997. “51 Miles of Concrete: The Exploitation and Transformation of the Los Angeles River.” Southern California Quarterly 79 (4): 431–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/41171869

Harvey, Penelope. 2010. “CEMENTING RELATIONS: The materiality of roads and public spaces in provincial Peru.” Social Analysis, 54(2): 28-46. https://doi.org/10.3167/sa.2010.540203

Harvey, Penelope, and Hannah Knox. 2012. “The Enchantments of Infrastructure.” Mobilities 7 (4): 521–536. https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1080/17450101.2012.718935

Ingold, Tim. 2010. “Bringing Things to Life: Creative Entanglements in a World of Materials”. NCRM Working Paper Series. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods. https://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/id/eprint/1306/1/0510_creative_entanglements.pdf

Ingold, Tim. 2012. “Toward an Ecology of Materials”. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 427-442. https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145920

Kim, Esther G. 2017. “Restoring a River to Reclaim a City?: The Politics of Urban Sustainability and Environmental Justice in the Los Angeles River Watershed.” PhD dissertation, UC Berkeley. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/46p657nv

Kimmelman, Michael. 2022. “Remaking the River That Remade L.A.” The New York Times, 10 November 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/10/magazine/la-river-redesign.html

Kocisky, Katherine. 2022. “Towards conceptions of green gentrification as more-than-human.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 5(2): 646-665. https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1177/25148486211001754

Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Linton, Joe. 2005. Down by the Los Angeles River: Friends of the Los Angeles River’s Official Guide. Berkeley: Wilderness Press

Los Angeles County. 2022. LA River Master Plan. Prepared by Geosyntec, OLIN, and Gehry Partners, LLP. Los Angeles. https://pw.lacounty.gov/uploads/swp/LARiverMasterPlan-FINAL-DIGITAL-COMPRESSED.pdf

Macfarlane, Robert, Nizeti Joseph, and Jennifer Peedom. 2021. River. Documentary. Directed by Jennifer Peedom and Joseph Nizeti. Sydney: Stranger Than Fiction Films.

Marrero, Pilar. 2022. “County Supervisors Approve LA River Master Plan and Land Bank for Affordable Housing.” PBS SoCal, 16 June 2022. https://www.pbssocal.org/news-community/county-supervisors-approve-la-river-master-plan-and-land-bank-for-affordable-housing

Safransky, Sara. 2014. “Greening the urban frontier: Race, property, and resettlement in Detroit.” Geoforum 56: 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.06.003

Tolle, Madeline. 2022. “Documenting Los Angeles’s Unlikely Urban Fishermen.” The New York Times, 31 January 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/31/travel/urban-fishing-los-angeles.html

Tsing, Anna. 2001. “Inside the Economy of Appearances”. In Globalization, edited by Arjun Appadurai, 115-144. Durham: Duke University Press.https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822383215-010