Rebuilding New Orleans

[Motina 77]

Date: <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />10/6/2005 5:16:53 PM Author: snowpap

A bit off the New Orleans subject here but I'm saying it anyway.

Pointless war, eh? I guess WWII was a mistake as well, right?

A yes, it was a pointless war. Hitler was aloud to rise to the status he did. The democratic countries sat back in their chairs watching Hitler take country after country hoping that he would then attack the Soviets. What happened instead? They in turn took France. Going to the Japanese, the U.S. knew Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor, in fact if Hitler was eliminated sooner, the Japanese would never had tried to attack the U.S.

Taking out a ruthless dictator, Hitler, who killed anyone who disagreed with him and buried them in mass graves. Gee, that sounds familiar, can you say Sadam?

Saddam never slaughter amass (like Hitler or Stalin).. in fact the Sunni and Shia are doing a significant amount of killing themselves. Saddam and his secular rule kept such religious insanity in check. Saddam brought infrastructure, Health and education to Iraq. It was far ahead of any Middle-Eastern country.. maybe save that of Israel. Through the decievances (backing of the western world and the Arab - creating massive debt), Iraq entered a war with Iran. This caused an economic collapse; all the upgrades Saddam had done was disintegrating. The Gulf war was a war on oil, not freeing Kuwait, a country against Israel and sided with the communists. (So why is the U.S. on Kuwait

[Clox552003 1]

The Republicans make themselves quite obvious do they not. Talking about not wasting money on rebuilding New Orleans, Ah what the hell it's only America's heritage going down the tubes, as long as I have my home in the suburbs why should I care Despite this they miss the fact that their president has created a ballooning deficit and his plans to decrease it will end up increasing it in the long run. It's time the liberals stood their groud and not let the right wing nuts dominate proceedings

[Skym 0]

Living under sealevel is not the problem , the problem is the government , in th netherlands we have lived under sealeve for almost 70 years,and it only once whent wrong

[Jasoncw 11,946]

#2 Global warming is a complete farce there is no scientific evidence that we are causing global warming. The planet goes through it's natural stages and we pee-ons can not change them or alter them. This is not the most active hurricane season on record.

I'd hate to bring this thread even more off topic, but that's just plain wrong. lol. Yes, the planet does have it's phases, but right now it is supposed to be getting colder (we are going into another ice age). Secondly, we know that the gasses we emit enhance the greenhouse effect and we know that we are emiting alot of gasses. On every single study on the subject there is a correlation. The we're not doing it, it's doing it by itself attitude is one of the reasons we have environmental problems in the first place.

Back on topic. I think that only the most culturaly and economicly significant parts should be protected by a new levee. With less area to cover more money could be spent on each section. Everything else below sea level should not be protected, but could be built like a venice untill more funds are available for more walls. Preserve what you can with the resources you have. Whatever happens there shouldn't be any new development in the flood zone, a 2nd downtown should be formed in a safe area. I'm not familiar with the geography of the city though so I don't know if any of this is practical.

But imo if you knowlingly live in a danger zone like that you should be able to accept the concequences and you should have a plan.

long post!

[jglei701 8]

If you thought that was a long post, check this one out...

 

 

Who says you can't learn things from popular culture?  This is part of a scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

 

Listen, lad. I built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other kings said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp, but the fourth one... stayed up! And that's what you're gonna get, lad: the strongest castle in these islands.

 

Moral of the story... if you build something in a bad place, nature tends to not care how much money you've invested in it, or how many people live there, or how badly you really want to live there.  If it's a bad place, then your proverbial castle probably will sink, and the cost of the disaster will be in the $200+ billion range, over 90,000 square miles for the entire region (about the size of New England), just like Katrina was. 

 

But, really, not a ton could be done about the Alabama and Mississippi gulf coasts.  This storm was just that HUGE and powerful.  But what about New Orleans?  This is the castle that was built on the marsh.  Katrina's strike on N.O. alone will be in the $100,000,000,000 range for the parcel of land that is New Orleans...  a piece of land that is just 180.6 square miles.  The death toll for Hurricane Katrina is currently (as of Oct 17) at 1356, 1062 of which are in Louisiana, and a great percentage of that number in New Orleans.

 

Now, my point is that there is inherently a problem with WHERE New Orleans was founded.  The unfortunate thing is that it needed to be where it was.  It is a great port.  A necessary one.  It lies at the mouth of the Mississippi River, which is the artery into the heart of America.  But the city of New Orleans now lies in an area that is below sea level.  They've gotta build levees to keep the water out... just as a matter of practice.  Lake Pontchartrain, a gigantic body of water, lies, waiting, hungrily looking at the bowl that New Orleans has become after sinking, year after year, into the unstable ground of the bayou it was built upon.  Lake Ponchartrain knows that it can't disobey the laws of nature and NOT flow downstream, should the levees break again.  On the other side, the Mississippi River, which is the lifeblood of the port that brings goods much of the country and is the 4th largest port in the world in terms of volume, where 286 million tons of goods went through, flows at a volume of 600,000 feet per second.  To put that in perspective...  there are 7.489 gallons of water in a cubig foot.  One cubic foot of water weighs 62.4 pounds.  A 48 foot semi trailer is a 3,600 cubic foot container.  At New Orleans, the equivalent of 166 semi-trailers of water flow past Algiers point each second.  That's mind-boggling.

 

What's it all mean?  Well, we've gotta put SOMETHING where New Orleans was.  The fact that the Port of New Orleans is so necessary to the economies of the U.S. and other countries around the world is undisputable.

 

But, should the large financial center continue to exist there?  Should 500,000 people move back?  I'm not so sure.  I've heard lots of quotes from people that they're not coming back, and honestly, I wouldn't either.  They have no guarantee that the levees won't break again.  And what's to say that, even if they WERE replaced by something significantly more substantial (say, a 30 foot thick, 100 foot high seawall) that people would want to live by it?  (Think about people who have walls put up so that traffic noise isn't so loud... people tend to be particular about what they live by). 

 

The end all of it is that it would be very, very expensive to rebuild New Orleans to its former self AND to protect it in the ways that it needs to be protected.  Would it not make more sense to just rebuild the parts that NEED to be rebuilt, and rebuild the rest of the city on high ground, NOT in a sinking bayou? 

 

How many times do we rebuild the castle before we give up and stop trying to put ourselves in harms way and build where it makes sense?

 

 

And, Skym,  a couple of questions for you... Does a river that carries the volume of the Mississippi flow right next to the areas that are under sea level?  And, also, does the Netherlands have hurricanes?  These are very real factors for New Orleans...  The levees don't just have to keep the sea out in normal conditions, they have to keep the sea out in some of the most extreme conditions that can be faced on this planet.

 

 

Also, I have stuff to say about the global warming, too, but I'll save that for later...

[Jedi Knight 0]

Hello,

I have been reading all the posts and I just wanted to add my two cents to it.  I am a lifelong resident of New Orleans and I have been driving around many parts of the city since being allowed back in.  The devestation is absolutely horrendous.  Many parts of it would be comparable to images of Iraq I see in the news.  Every once and again a certain topic comes up on this thread that sort of bothers me.  Some have said that the city should be rebuilt in a different location safe from the threat of flooding.  In my opinion that is not feasible.  I say this not because I love my city (which I do) but because there is no place along the Mississippi River where it could possibly be rebuilt.  Many have suggested to rebuild upriver from its current location as to compensate for the below sea level status.  The point along the river that is closest to the Gulf of Mexico and high enough above sea level as to assure safety would be Baton Rouge.  Everything downriver of there gets dangerously close to going below sea level.  The furthest downriver from Baton Rouge that would qualify would be the Laplace area and even that is a stretch.  For those not familiar with the geography LaPlace is about 40 or so miles upriver of New Orleans.  If this site is chosen to rebuild then New Orleans would become a suburb of Baton Rouge because of the close proximity.  If New Orleans is to exist as a distinct city there is no way it could ever be rebuilt in another location.  I believe people will return to New Orleans.  It may take a few years to return to population levels that existed pre-Katrina but I feel it will happen.  If the hurricane protection system is given top priority and something similar to what the Netherlands have is constructed I feel that more people will come.  Was the city built in a bad spot? Absolutely.  But I don't think that the city should be abandoned because of that. Thanks.

[GDDan 4]

I think NO should be rebuilt. though it is in a dangerous location, look at Los Angeles. Everyone knows sooner or later the big earthquake is gonna hit. how many people think LA shouldn't be rebuilt?

What if a tidal wave hit New York City? would you be against the reconstruction of it?

 

Lots of cities have been distroyed in the past - Chicago, San Fransisco, Atlanta, London, Tokyo... they where all rebuilt.

[Madhollander 0]

Ok, Here's the vision of someone living 2.5 meters under sea level.

First of all, Dykes cannot be made of concrete, PERIOD, water will find a way past/under/along a dyke, im a groundworker and in my years i've learned and seen that water will always force a way trough or past a object trying to block the water, and thats where clay comes in handy, a clay casket will (when started well under the normal river bottem) hold back all water that is pushing against it, clay lets trough a minimum of water and the sheire weight of it will prevent the dyke sliding, or collapsing. The only thing that is needed to monitor cuntiniuisly is the state it is in, it has a perfect setting with a % of fluid in the dyke, to much and it will collapse trough the water, to little and it will dry out and crack with the same reslults.

From what i've read in the papers and on the internet it seems as that the dykes in New Orleans ware build uncarefully and did'nt get inspected as much as was nessecary to be able to guarantee safety in the lower land area.

Should it be rebuild is asked in this topic...

Off course it should be rebuild, however this time man and nature will have to work together, don't build on wetlands, make water storage capacity, (recently near where i live they took a farmers land with cow's on it and put dykes all around it, in case of extreme water and a possible spill or break of a dyke the emergency pumps will start and fill up the farmers land and so make a emergency storage wich will be pumped dry again once the water level in the main waterways has lowerd again)

work with nature, don't ignore it.

just my 2 cents . . .

[umnoscottishhootsmon 0]

i'm not sur about you lot but i think the venice idea could be a good one but only partially i do think new orleans should move to the edge of the sea level that way if ANOTHER hurricane comes along at least the water will drain out and the port can be rebuilt i'm not sure about existing new orleans if that should turn into old new orleans like futurama the venice thing could get some money however drilling for oil is stupid the loss of oil will be the downfall of the economically developed countries so the reserve is important until we adapt to hydrogen or solar so drilling just to put prices down and money in to build new orleans is stupid

[+Guest]

I don't think rebuilding is a very smart or economical idea. That shouldn't stop people who want to fork over the dough to do it... they might just impress the whole world! I'm all for letting people go ahead and do it as long as Bush doesn't get his way and force people in the rest of the country to pay for it. People in Denver who had the wherewithall to NOT live on a floodplain eight feet below sea level should not have to contribute one single dime to such an endeavor.

As for filling in the bowl with a bunch of dirt, that's just a corporate-welfare fantasy on crack.

As for encouraging rebuilding, and building a new levee, and giving the Army Corps of Engineers more money to take care of it, building the new levee is also a corporate welfare fantasy on crack. Besides, if you give more money to the ACoE after a failure this massive, they'll know exactly how to get even *more* funding... just let the thing fail again!

[+Guest]

Date: 11/18/2005 3:05:40 AM
Author: GDDan

I think NO should be rebuilt. though it is in a dangerous location, look at Los Angeles. Everyone knows sooner or later the big earthquake is gonna hit. how many people think LA shouldn't be rebuilt?

What if a tidal wave hit New York City? would you be against the reconstruction of it?

Lots of cities have been distroyed in the past - Chicago, San Fransisco, Atlanta, London, Tokyo... they where all rebuilt.

quote>

It's not a matter of should/should not be rebuilt... it's a matter of *who rebuilds*

If a big earthquake hits my hometown of Los Angeles, I think any group of people with the balls to rebuild it with their own $$$ have every right to go ahead and try. People in St. Louis or wherever, who give up the neat-o geologic scenery in favor of a less tectonically active landscape (earthquakes and huge craggy mountains are interrelated), should not have to fork over anything for it.

If you have *the public* pay for rebuilding a city, first off, the firm that rebuilds it gets filthy rich off tax dollars... that's sick, for if they want tons of money, they can compete for people's voluntary purchases. Secondly, saying *the public* should pay for it means that they should be taxed.

Okay, I'm gonna go reaaaaly off topic with this next paragraph. Well, what if some people don't want to pay for such an endeavor, and refuse to pay *their fair share* for the project? You'll have to send a collector over to get it. And if they don't play ball with the collector? Send him back, this time with armed thugs to help him extort the needed funding. And if he doesn't give into intimidation and threats? Just seize it from his bank accounts. Well, what if he's smart enough not keep his money in banks? Just find out where he *does* keep it, and send a platoon of FBI agents to go get it. Well, what if he's waiting there with the proper tools to defend what he has worked forty-plus hours a week to accumulate?

Let's just say that in order to get an unrelated and unwilling party to pay for rebuilding LA, NO, SF, NY, DFW, KC, StL, or whereever... means you have to be willing to kill him for it. We are Borg, resistance is futile.

Anyway, those are my two posts... I've said basically the same thing in both, so I'll keep my fingers cuffed for now.

[Duke87 1,070]

Date: 10/5/2005 2:19:40 PM Author: louisville327 The best way to rebuild New Orleans (and the most expensive) would be to dump a whole lot of dirt into the 'bowl' that was so heavily flooded. Raise the lower sections of the city several feet to prevent future inundations.

quote>

You know, those were my thoughts exactly...

 

Trouble is, it's still not a permanent solution. Because all those marshes are disappearing, the city of New Orleans could easily find itself on an island by the year 2100.

[+Guest]

Date: 12/3/2005 10:13:59 PM
Author: Duke87
Trouble is, it's still not a permanent solution. Because all those marshes are disappearing, the city of New Orleans could easily find itself on an island by the year 2100.

quote>

Meh, that wouldn't necessarily be so bad... even if the distance from the shore was too much for a bridge, a ferry could get people from a mainland airport to the island and back. It shouldn't necessarily disrupt its shipping business too badly since as far as I know, NO is just a relay station where goods get off of riverboats and onto big ocean barges and vice-versa. Ya don't necessarily have to be on the mainland to make that work, or even on a large island.

It would be interesting... like a mini-Manhattan =].

[Digital Slash 0]

What if a tidal wave hit New York City? would you be against the reconstruction of it?

 

Lots of cities have been distroyed in the past - Chicago, San Fransisco, Atlanta, London, Tokyo... they where all rebuilt.

quote>

 

A tidal wave hitting N.Y.C. and destroying Manhattan would be a freak accident.

 

Chicago and London were both destroyed in fires. Once again, freak accidents.

 

But NO is unique, and I don't think it should be rebuilt. Here's why:

 

1.) Hurricanes will continue to pound this area. I understand that there is only one mouth to the Mississippi, but it's just unwise to build a city here.

 

2.) Givin the current president and him coming from sprawly Texas, and with the trend today being to build sprawly cities (L.A., Houston, Vegas, Pheonix) I'd be worried that NO would be rebuilt into a major suburb.

 

3.) It takes forever to get approval to build ANYTHING theses days, it would take forever to rebuild an entire city! And after/during rebuilding the city could be destroyed again.

[joel4 1]

a,im from new orleans,my house is a mess and the only

way my house flooded because the seventeeth street canel

had broken.but the part  i lived in new orleans was one of the

highest parts of the city.how could it flood.my house had eight 

feet of water.i lived in the 8 ward,a few blocks from the 9 ward

the hardest hit part.

[RebaLynnTS 276]

Not rebuild NO? Because it is in a bad place? That's like saying, don't rebuild San Fran, cause it is in an earthquake zone. Or don't rebuild the communities devastated by tornadoes, or fires, or any other natural desaster. Which by the way happen ALL over the world in one form or another.

I also live in the New Orleans area, however, I was lucky, no damage. My parents and grandmother though, lost everything. They are now living in FEMA trailers behind my house.

 

As far as who is to blame for what went wrong? BLANCO! She said NO to Bush when he first offered help. She told Nagin NOT to impliment the evacuation plans (which, btw, he did anyway, just later than he should have) Why did she do this. If it had been a false alarm, like many in the past, she would have looked like a fool. As it is, she does anyway.

 

It is true that there was a plan for a Cat 5 hurricane in place, but it did not cover one that was so BIG.

 

As of this post, this IS the busiest ATLANTIC hurricane season on record.

[joel4 1]

yes,there are going to rebuild new orleans.because we

are moving back in the summer.and who would not

rebuild a city with that have a big downtown area.but

they say that the city was washed away by god because

their were so many murders every year.besides its the

murder capitol of the united states.yep,their were 421

murders at once but now it calm down to 175.

 

[Micah 16]

We should rebuild.

 

Now, I think environmentalist do some good things for us here and there, but because of the environmentalist we do not have seawalls farther down in the marsh lands. Environmentalists claimed the marshes would protect New Orleans against Cat. 5 Hurricanes, but it didn't protect New Orleans at all.

 

I think it will be extremely costly to build New Orleans. Guys, just look at our deficit! There are still parts of Florida that I visited 5 months ago that are still not rebuilt from the 2004 hurricane season! If you want it rebuilt, don't rely on the government. Let the people build it.

 

Still, let's rebuild New Orleans. Those people there are great people (I met many of them who came over here to Houston)!!

 

 

Edited: The only thing bad is that our murder rate and crime rate is going sky high... for certain reasons.

 

[Call 0]

I just think that any geographical area that needs a towering levee around it just to keep it from flooding--when there isn't even a flood--is a bad place to build.

Say it's rebuilt. Then five years from now, another hurricane wipes it out...when is enough enough? When is it finally not productive to continue to rebuild it?

[Micah 16]

Date: 12/9/2005 11:39:59 PM Author: Call I just think that any geographical area that needs a towering levee around it just to keep it from flooding--when there isn't even a flood--is a bad place to build. Say it's rebuilt.&nbsp; Then five years from now, another hurricane wipes it out...when is enough enough?&nbsp; When is it finally not productive to continue to rebuild it?

quote>

Yeah, I think we should rebuild, but that is one problem New Orleans still faces. Like right after Katrina, Rita hits...

[diablo_del_bano 3]

i hope it is rebuilt. and i hope it can grow. i already wanted to move there, and i still do. also, i think in tye areas where there is abselutely nothing left, they should just fill over the rubble with dirt and gravel and then rebuild. some of those areas are clean slates now, and there not historic areas. the historic parts of new orleans are all at sea level or very close to it and are near the river. the french quarter never flodded. neither did most of downtown. audubon park and the garden district never flodded, and i don't think st. charles ave flooded. (btw, that is one cool cable car ride) i think the parts that flooded along the river only flooded a few inches. should the city be moved? no. should the city be abandoned? hell no. should we rebuild? if we want to protect a place with some of the most history in america, then yes. (although the historic parts just took wind and rain damage; no flooding)

[godsend 1]

I think the Feds should pay the dykes up to cat 5 since the Amry corp takes care of them. I don't believe they should pay for everything but since years of rejecting $$ for the dykes they should shut up and pay for it plus it was on the books for years and the choose not to pay for a cat 5 dyake.

We waste $$ on so much so spending $$ on what is needed should not be an issues.

I wish they stop taken polls and crap and just do what is right.

[coolotter88 2]

building higher levees won't help, it will just make the city sink lower and lower, you see, the thing is, every year, when the mississippi floods each year, it dumps all of the dirt and stuff into new orlean's bowl. when you build levees, the sediments don't get dumped into the bowl. and the delta everyone's been destroying, it helps stop hurricanes, they kind of destroyed their own city. i'd say abandon the city for a couple of decades. let it return to normal then figure out a way to keep the city from sinking in the future. you know, i read in a science journal like 3 years before the disaster happened. they like predicted the exact thing would happen. a big hurricane will come, push lake ponchartrian over and flood el city.

the marshes DO protect the city from hurricanes, they're the only buffer for all the rain. its just that the marshes have been damaged too much that they can't do their job anymore, the levees shouldn't be where they are. the levees wrecked the city. new plans should be thought of.

[Shadow Assassin 336]

Rebuild it, but build it in such a way that the Missisippi can flow through the city freely, using a network of canals. Levees wouldn't work, but you can use the sediment that the river dumps there to your advantage, allow it to build up New Orlean's defences.