Should they rebuild N O?

[sdgserv]

I have spent a little time there and I can echo what others have said that this one of the "jeweled cities of our country". The facts are that another Hurricane will hit this city again.

1. Rebuild?
2. Bring all the buildings down and raise it above sea level?
3. Leave this toilet bowl alone?

Your opinions?

 

[yllus]

Rebuild. Bigger, better, stronger. On a personal note I think that we need to be wary of the type of development that takes place in the months to come - there's always a danger that low and middle income housing will be pushed aside when those spaces are sorely needed.

 

[Czar]

we can rebuild it
we have the technology



in all seriousness, build it the same but with wayy better protections from the river, and maybe special buildings to house thousands of people high up in an emergency... these buildings can have a primary purpose of something like office building but secondary should be safehouses

 

[sdgserv]

I don't have any good solution. Seems to me that hurricanes are really kickin are ass. and mutiple solutions are needed. Growing up I never heard of hurricane season? Spring Winter Fall Summer, whats goin on?

 

[luigi1]

There must be enough to support the port. The loss of New Orleans would not be a good thing. Theres a lot of culture and tradition there. I think the port of New orleans must survive and rather quickly as the harvest is upon us. It sounds like the french quarter is mostly intact and a lot of the history of the place is there. The logistics of raising a city in a state that is sinking kinda befuddeltes me but mabee wiser ones can speak.

In 1814 we took a little trip
Down with corl. Jackson to the mighty missipp
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we fought the bloody british in the town of New Orleans
Fired our guns and they kept a'comming
Though there wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago
Fired once more and they began a'running
Down the mississippi
to the gulf of mexico
Oh they ran through the briars
and they ran through the brissles
and they ran through places that a rabbit couldnt go
ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
down the mississippi to the gulf of mexico

 

[eilute]

It would be nice if we could move the city somewhere nearby. New Orleans will undoubtably be flooded again, and it likely that future storms will cause even greater damage. It would seem foolish to rebuild the city as is. Some changes will to take place. Raising the whole city 30-40 feet might also be nice, but it would be very costly.

If we rebuild in the same place, then we will need to have water proofed water pumps, raise the dikes up to 30 or 40 feet, and make sure that these dikes can take 190mph susteained, 210mph peak winds.

 

[glugglug]

They just need a shield to hold back the water. Like in Stargate Atlantis.

 

[sdgserv]

They just need a shield to hold back the water. Like in Stargate Atlantis

LOL I like that

 

[chrisrod01]

Originally posted by: Czar
we can rebuild it
we have the technology



in all seriousness, build it the same but with wayy better protections from the river, and maybe special buildings to house thousands of people high up in an emergency... these buildings can have a primary purpose of something like office building but secondary should be safehouses

Would have been funnier if you said
we can rebuild it
we have the technology
but we dont want to spend to much

Hell yea they should rebuild and make it stronger like it should have been in the first place cause america is ignorent .How? By building it what kind of question is that ???lol

 

[T3C]

Yeah they should rebuild it. Hopefully nothing like this happens again in are lifetime.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Many tall, well designed structures survive quite well.

Almost everything standing in deep water will have to be have to be razed due to long term water damage.

To reclaim the city it has to go vertical & everything below the waterline becomes garage structures or sacrificial light trade shops.

 

[coolkatz321]

This may sound stupid... but I think the best thing to do is rebuild. As in, completely demolish the city and restart. Most things there are completely destroyed anyway. Salvage whatever isn't gone, then tear down and completely rebuild everything. And, make the levees really, really strong and really, really high.

 

[dmcowen674]

It will be re-built very quickly. Developers are already drawing up plans as we speak.

The NFL Saints will no longer be marching here but the spirit of New Orleans will be marching as strong as ever.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
It will be re-built very quickly. Developers are already drawing up plans as we speak.

The NFL Saints will no longer be marching here but the spirit of New Orleans will be marching as strong as ever.

^

 

[coolkatz321]

Yeah... but the Saints suck anyway lol, so no one really cares about them

 

[sdgserv]

I was watching the news this morning and they are still pulling people out. Makes me sick.
Your right about the Saints.. a move could'nt hurt

 

[imported_Ant]

Can they build a decent transit system between the port area and higher ground? Isn't that all it would take to encourage people to rebuild elsewhere?

I haven't been able to find a decent topographic map of the area but the north side of the lake looks a lot more stable than the mudpit around New orleans.

From what I've read, the ground around the area of New Orleans is a little unstable and with the lack of floodplains, the problem is becoming worse over time.

Do you want another Atlantis? I'd agree that a city under the sea would be pretty cool but the cost could be relatively high in both people and money.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No.

It would be far better and probably cheaper to start elsewhere, above the waterline.

Rebuilding NO is akin to rebuilding a homes where mudslides happen all the time.

NO was built over time. Time to move.

 

[imported_Ant]

You do realise you're talking about a port city that is basically built around trade?

If you move it somewhere else, you might as well move the port to another state and give Louisiana up as the floodplain of the Mississippi.

 

[Busithoth]

People who claim we should abandon NO make me sick.
The city is sinking as a result of the government's straightening the Mississippi, which lowered the water levels beneath the city, and the efluvient soil compacted over time, and now it's below sea level. This same tampering has eroded coastline which protects the city (and everything inland from it).

Senator Mary Landrieu proposed (again) a project to redirect some of the river's flow and reinstate the coastline, to protect the nation's biggest port region. It would cost the equivalent of 2 weeks in Iraq. Unless this is done, I think it would be criminal to rebuild NO, as it would be setting the city up for another disaster along these lines.

Just rebuilding the levees (a continuous project since 1965, for crying out loud) is not a long-term solution, though it could well have avoided the situation we're in now.

There is a consensus in Washington to not lay blame, point fingers, or even scrutinize the conditions which brought this about.
That flies in the face of what the country seems to want (accountability), but that wouldn't be the first time Washington's been out of touch.

If we abandon NO to its fate, then that policy MUST be extended to Florida, Alaska, California, and every other site of potentially compromised occupation. Florida received record amounts of cash to rebuild last year, but every year it's gotten bailed out, even as it's population swells. Suggesting that NO should rot and its citizens be relocated is nothing more than calling for the dismantling of the federal government as we know it, and while that's fine as an argument, one making it should contemplate its ramifications, because they are truly collosal.

 

[Mokmo418]

Don't allow rebuilding in areas affected by the flooding
that means good parts of the old area tourists love so much would be spared.

Example: region of Saguenay, Quebec, Canada
In august 1996 the area was hit by very heavy rains caused by a depression that had somehow completely stopped over Lake St-Jean and was feeding on it. Result: hundreds of dead, downtown areas wiped out. Most of the damage was caused when the water went around the levies made to protect the people. Now most have rebuild their homes, but nowhere near the floodline.

And a little recommendation:

AND DON'T LET THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DO THE FLOOD CONTROL EVER AGAIN IN THAT AREA, They never believed the worst case scenario could happen. Guess what, it is. Of course these guys do so much to protect the citizens from rivers like the Red River up north or the Mississipi, and it should stay that way. But we're dealing with sea water here, it can go any direction, even up.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Mokmo418
Don't allow rebuilding in areas affected by the flooding
that means good parts of the old area tourists love so much would be spared.

Example: region of Saguenay, Quebec, Canada
In august 1996 the area was hit by very heavy rains caused by a depression that had somehow completely stopped over Lake St-Jean and was feeding on it. Result: hundreds of dead, downtown areas wiped out. Most of the damage was caused when the water went around the levies made to protect the people. Now most have rebuild their homes, but nowhere near the floodline.

And a little recommendation:

AND DON'T LET THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DO THE FLOOD CONTROL EVER AGAIN IN THAT AREA, They never believed the worst case scenario could happen. Guess what, it is. Of course these guys do so much to protect the citizens from rivers like the Red River up north or the Mississipi, and it should stay that way. But we're dealing with sea water here, it can go any direction, even up.

The best description that I have seen regarding the Corps' is that it "has long been given a mission far broader than its budget".

Everyone, and I do mean at every level of government, for the last few decades knew that this could happen and the conseqences had been explained by many people. Instead of planning for the disaster, building better structures to prevent it, and making sure the public was informed and prepared for the worst case scenario. Instead the gov (local, state, and federal) decided to keep rolling the dice on the hope that a major storm would not hit the city. You play the game long enough betting everything on each roll you are eventually going to lose and they did, except it is the people of NO that paid the price.

 

[IronWing]

The Mississippi has wanted to abandon NO for years. Only the work of the Corps has kept the Mississippi in its current location so that the Port of NO isn't stranded. This makes some sense given the huge infrastructure investment in the port. The Atchafalaya is a much quicker route to the sea for the waters of the Mississippi. So far, the Corps has managed to prevent the connection from ocurring. The current state of the delta is far out of equilibrium. NO is sinking and will keep sinking without new sediment. But how do we replenish sediment in a city? One possible but very expensive solution is to allow the Atchafalaya to capture the Mississippi and relocate the port facilities to that river, leaving NO as a city w/o a port.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
No.

It would be far better and probably cheaper to start elsewhere, above the waterline.

Rebuilding NO is akin to rebuilding a homes where mudslides happen all the time.

NO was built over time. Time to move.

Move Amsterdam while you're at it. And Galveston. How about San Francisco since it's on a fault line. Hell, let's just relocate ever city somewhere else.

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Originally posted by: Busithoth
People who claim we should abandon NO make me sick.
The city is sinking as a result of the government's straightening the Mississippi, which lowered the water levels beneath the city, and the efluvient soil compacted over time, and now it's below sea level. This same tampering has eroded coastline which protects the city (and everything inland from it).

Senator Mary Landrieu proposed (again) a project to redirect some of the river's flow and reinstate the coastline, to protect the nation's biggest port region. It would cost the equivalent of 2 weeks in Iraq. Unless this is done, I think it would be criminal to rebuild NO, as it would be setting the city up for another disaster along these lines.

Just rebuilding the levees (a continuous project since 1965, for crying out loud) is not a long-term solution, though it could well have avoided the situation we're in now.

There is a consensus in Washington to not lay blame, point fingers, or even scrutinize the conditions which brought this about.
That flies in the face of what the country seems to want (accountability), but that wouldn't be the first time Washington's been out of touch.

If we abandon NO to its fate, then that policy MUST be extended to Florida, Alaska, California, and every other site of potentially compromised occupation. Florida received record amounts of cash to rebuild last year, but every year it's gotten bailed out, even as it's population swells. Suggesting that NO should rot and its citizens be relocated is nothing more than calling for the dismantling of the federal government as we know it, and while that's fine as an argument, one making it should contemplate its ramifications, because they are truly collosal.

There were two scientists on NBC "Meet The Press" this morning. They both echoed exactly what you say. The problems have been documented and studied for a long time.

They both advocated rebuilding but only if it is done correctly. Coastline restoration, barrier islands etc. I think it's amazing that New Orleans escaped this disaster for as long as it did.