3 ms·

The skate community is not going to be happy about this

larkost 3y ago
I think they are mostly talking about the ones that carry water much (all?) of the year in the central valley, rather than the ones in L.A. proper. So I don't think skaters will have much to complain about.
- Animats 3y ago
  Right. The LA River is an emergency drainage system that isn't needed much. Last month, it was needed.[1] The California Aqueduct is usually kept full. Falling into the California Aqueduct is usually lethal.[2] 30 feet deep, steep banks, and a high rate of flow. It's fenced, but just with ranch fencing. [1] https://archive.is/2dbEI https://archive.is/2dbEI [2] https://archive.is/H52Jk https://archive.is/H52Jk
  - buffington 3y ago
    > steep banks Not just steep, they're often vertical and not even remotely skateable even when dry.
buffington 3y ago
As a member of that community, I am happy about this (and appreciate the consideration for our happiness - it's not something we're accustomed to). Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the kinds of canals we skate don't contain flowing water. Sure, there are rivers with engineered concrete river beds in metro areas that might have a smaller channel with water, but the skateable parts are dry (Santa Ana river, Los Angeles River, etc). Concrete river beds are also more of a novelty than they are enjoyable. The concrete is like corduroy. It takes a lot more effort to move, and when you fall, you leave smeared portions of yourself behind. The canals the article talks about are much smaller, and typically serve agriculture in Central California with edge to edge flowing water. When dry, those can be fun, but again, they're not the first on my list of fun places to skate (which isn't to say they're not fun, just not as fun as other places). They're full of debris, very rough, and lose their appeal pretty quickly. Personally, if losing those spots means more efficient use of water, it's a very small price and one I'm willing to pay.

I think they are mostly talking about the ones that carry water much (all?) of the year in the central valley, rather than the ones in L.A. proper. So I don't think skaters will have much to complain about.

Animats 3y ago
Right. The LA River is an emergency drainage system that isn't needed much. Last month, it was needed.[1] The California Aqueduct is usually kept full. Falling into the California Aqueduct is usually lethal.[2] 30 feet deep, steep banks, and a high rate of flow. It's fenced, but just with ranch fencing. [1] https://archive.is/2dbEI https://archive.is/2dbEI [2] https://archive.is/H52Jk https://archive.is/H52Jk
- buffington 3y ago
  > steep banks Not just steep, they're often vertical and not even remotely skateable even when dry.

buffington 3y ago

As a member of that community, I am happy about this (and appreciate the consideration for our happiness - it's not something we're accustomed to). Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the kinds of canals we skate don't contain flowing water. Sure, there are rivers with engineered concrete river beds in metro areas that might have a smaller channel with water, but the skateable parts are dry (Santa Ana river, Los Angeles River, etc). Concrete river beds are also more of a novelty than they are enjoyable. The concrete is like corduroy. It takes a lot more effort to move, and when you fall, you leave smeared portions of yourself behind. The canals the article talks about are much smaller, and typically serve agriculture in Central California with edge to edge flowing water. When dry, those can be fun, but again, they're not the first on my list of fun places to skate (which isn't to say they're not fun, just not as fun as other places). They're full of debris, very rough, and lose their appeal pretty quickly. Personally, if losing those spots means more efficient use of water, it's a very small price and one I'm willing to pay.