New Orleans; pushing forward

[sunspot]

I have a good idea about how to get New Orleans back on the road to recovery. If I was in charge, I would get the national guard in there for logistics, i.e., food, shelter, equipment, and then allow the residents of the broken down homes to build bonfires. Maybe each neighborhood could get a bonfire going to burn up the past so to speak, to get closure and be able to shift through their rubble. This will also reduce the debris by a large proportion. It would make excellent TV, mobilize the former residences, and get country mobilized.

[gcol]

Why bother? with rising sea levels and increasing weather extremes, I wager a mud pie to a shrimp that it will be permanently inundated within fifty years.

 

Let nature reclaim it, save some bucks, and remember King Canute.

[herpguy]

I agree with gcol. Another hurricane may do the same thing after New Orleans is rebuilt, so why bother? As hard as you fight mother nature, you will lose. So I say that if you're going to rebuild New Orleans, do it somewhere else where it has a lower risk of extreme flood damage, and where you don't have to destroy a lot wildlife to do it.

[eruheru]

Why bother? with rising sea levels and increasing weather extremes' date=' I wager a mud pie to a shrimp that it will be permanently inundated within fifty years.

 

Let nature reclaim it, save some bucks, and remember King Canute.[/quote']

replace new orleans with your hometown, and then try to say the same thing.

[Sisyphus]

replace new orleans with your hometown, and then try to say the same thing.

 

If my hometown were as horribly designed as New Orleans, I'd be in favor of abandoning it if it were practical to do so. Whether it's practical in the case of New Orleans is one question. What's not in question is a) the fact that it ought to be, and b) the fact that New Orleanites will never agree to leave.

 

Of course, if they don't leave, we could just let them fend for themselves. Want to unnaturally divert a major river, prevent a natural silting process, and do the whole thing below sea level? Fine. But don't expect the rest of us to pay for it when the gulf swallows you. Cover the Katrina cost, of course, but make it clear we're not going to subsidize their stupidity the next time, so they have fair warning and nobody to blame but themselves.

[Pangloss]

Not all of the New Orleans area is below sea level, so even if we abandoned those places too low to protect without major expense we'd still be looking at a fairly sizable city. I wouldn't have any problem with some sort of compromise in this area, and in fact it seems likely that no matter what is done, the city will be smaller anyway, just due to the natural attrition that's already happening/happened.

 

But in general it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to abandon everything that happens to be on a coastline threatened by hurricanes. That would be everything from Portland to San Antonio.

[Sisyphus]

No, of course not. There's still a big difference between New Orleans and other coastal cities. New York is coastal, and we're not on the brink of being destroyed...

[insane_alien]

looks like we might be getting a city called new new orleans. seriously whos bright idea was it to put a costal city below the waterline. i couldn't replace it with my hometown(village) because if it was below the waterline i would have moved pretty quickly to a higher place.

[herpguy]

No, of course not. There's still a big difference between New Orleans and other coastal cities. New York is coastal, and we're not on the brink of being destroyed...

 

I'm sorry I have to say this, but yes, New York [City] is on the brink of being destroyed. I watched something on TV about how if a category 3 hurricane hits New York, it will be in the same state as New Orleans was after Katrina.

In New York, the storm surge would cause Times Square to be flooded, the wind will knock down many old buildings, etc.

 

Here's an article I found with some detail: http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050601_hurricane_1938.html

 

And here's something from the Weather Channel:http://www.whatifweather.com/?from=homepage

[gcol]

It could not possibly be true that pressure for rebuilding comes from real estate owners and property developers, could it? That would be so cynical. Convince me that the rebuilding would only be attempted because the port facilities were essential to the national economic infrastructure.

[Pangloss]

So what?

[gcol]

So what?

 

I'm not quite sure what the what means, but if I said:

 

1. If the renovation of The Big Easy is to be for private gain, then (a) the entrepreneurs and developers should put up all the moneyand not the state, (b) purchasers should have the risks and dangers unequivocally made plain, and insurers ready to take on the risks firmly taken on board on board. Caveat Emptor.

 

I see you are from south Florida. Is it all a bit too close to home?

[Aardvark]

Great cities are not made by governments, they are made by people choosing to live and work in a place. If enough people choose to make a living in New Orleans, despite the obvious drawbacks, then it will become a great city again. Otherwise it will naturally dwindle.

 

Governments should assist with emergency relief but when it comes to building up an entire city it shouldn't even be considered as to whether government gets a say in the matter. If New Orleans is in a rational place for a city it will be rebuilt regardless of government involvement, if it isn't, then it will dwindle, equally regardless of government involvement. The only question is whether large amounts of money are going to be funneled into politically connected contracters in the interim.

[Pangloss]

I'm not quite sure what the what means' date=' but if I said:

 

1. If the renovation of The Big Easy is to be for private gain, then (a) the entrepreneurs and developers should put up all the moneyand [u']not the state,[/u] (b) purchasers should have the risks and dangers unequivocally made plain, and insurers ready to take on the risks firmly taken on board on board. Caveat Emptor.

 

I see you are from south Florida. Is it all a bit too close to home?

 

I could have done without that last sentence. I see no reason for you to be speak to me as if I am a child. I simply didn't understand what you were saying.

 

I agree that if private interests are going to be involved in the rebuilding of the gulf coast then they should assume some of the risk. The degree of that, however, is debatable, and since the rebuilding of the gulf coast serves the rest of the country in a number of ways, some degree of federal funding is a reasonable thing to expect.

[gcol]

My last sentence: I guess I needed a smilie that said "I am sympathetic to your geographic point of view, whereas I am fortunate to be observing from a more secure location". Detached but understanding. Sorry.

[Sisyphus]

I'm sorry I have to say this' date=' but yes, New York [City'] is on the brink of being destroyed. I watched something on TV about how if a category 3 hurricane hits New York, it will be in the same state as New Orleans was after Katrina.

In New York, the storm surge would cause Times Square to be flooded, the wind will knock down many old buildings, etc.

 

Here's an article I found with some detail: http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050601_hurricane_1938.html

 

And here's something from the Weather Channel:http://www.whatifweather.com/?from=homepage

 

Yeah, yeah, bla, bla, alarmism. There's nowhere for which a "perfect" natural disaster couldn't be imagined that would devastate it, as the second website gleefully takes advantage of. That doesn't change the uniquely poor design of New Orleans. Consider:

 

New Orleans and its suburbs force the lower Mississippi into a particular path, whereas naturally sediments would cause its course to change constantly. Sediment is carried straight out to the gulf, where it cannot replenish the soil, and so the city is doomed to sink lower and lower every year. Much of it is already well below sea level, requiring higher and higher levees as well as constant pumping. Even more importantly, though, the sediment maintains (or rather, used to maintain) the barrier islands, which naturally exist in an equilibrium between erosion and sedimentary deposit. New Orleans' levees, however, give erosion a huge advantage, meaning the barrier islands and marshes behind them have been rapidly disappearing for a hundred years, and miles of them are gone. These would and did provide a buffer zone between city and hurricanes, dispersing the storms power and lowering surges. If Katrina had hit 60 years ago, the surge would have been 10 feet lower for just this reason, and nobody would have had to evacuate, and damage would be limited to that caused by high winds. But because of New Orleans' uniquely destructive design, this will happen more and more.

 

Now, there are some promising and ambitious plans to restore the wetlands, which could effectively prevent this sort of thing, but neither the city nor the state has the resources to do it on its own, and the Bush administration wants no part of it.

[Pangloss]

My last sentence: I guess I needed a smilie that said "I am sympathetic to your geographic point of view' date=' whereas I am fortunate to be observing from a more secure location". Detached but understanding. Sorry.[/quote']

 

Maybe I just misunderstood you then. Thanks.