To Rebuild....Or Not To Rebuild...

[Shuckins]

...that is the question!

In the midst of all the human suffering and devastation we should surely be willing to address some tough questions.  The physical geography around New Orleans is not going to improve.  Indeed, the city built in a bowl is likely to suffer a similar disaster at some point in the future.

Some studies I have seen recently state that a category 5 hurricane hitting the Big Easy dead on would cause 25,000 deaths.

Efforts to improve the city's hurricane safety will cost billions of dollars.

One has to ask the question at this point..."Is it worth the effort?"

Indeed....would it be wise to rebuild at the same location?  Should the city be relocated and the current site abandoned?

Your thoughts?

Regards, Shuckins

[Lazerus]

Rude, rough and ready response....While there is water trapped inside the 'bowl', the surface of which is now above sealevel(surface of the water), drop about 40 million metric tons of quick-crete into it, let it harden, and start from there.


It really is a tough question, but the answer that will ultimately be given is rebuild. There are too many people with too much invested in money and memories there to abandon it.

the city built in a bowl

Just a quick note. It wasn't built in a bowl, the city sank after the natural soil replinishment from the river was removed by the levees. So I've heard anyhow.

[Westy]

"drop about 40 million metric tons of quick-crete into it, let it harden, and start from there."

 Or they could use all the bull*****e generated in this forum as fill.  

 But truly.  If they rebuild New Orleans just as it was it'll just be a disaster waiting to happen again.

[Mickey1992]

From the reports that I have seen, many of the poorest (former) residents of NO have no insurance and have no $$ to rebuild.  I think the question is if someone ELSE will buy the land and build on it.  How many insurance companies will stop writing policies for NO now as many are in FL?

As for the hotels, casinos and the commerical properties.....who knows.

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by Westy
Or they could use all the bull*****e generated in this forum as fill.  

Naw, it'd take too long to harden, unless they use quick-crap..........

[Gunthr]

funding will be a big issue I think...  who will back loans for builders as vulnerable as that area is?

[MX555]

They should use that new law and condem the whole city and raise it up 1 foot above sea level.  Rebuild the leaves above that so when the next storm comes it might flood but gravity would pull the water out.  Now those large hi rise buildings could cut the lower floors out and put there lobbies on 2nd or 3rd floor like in Venice Italy.

It would still sink but that would fix it for a hundred years maybe.  Then it would be the next genrations turn.

Of course I believe in fixing things not just repairing them.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Lazerus
Naw, it'd take too long to harden, unless they use quick-crap..........

Introduce the word "gun" in a thread and beetle will provide more bs for you to use.

[Holden McGroin]

Holland is below sea level ...  alot of it anyway.

Venice has been flooded for a few centuries.

Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Tokyo are all built on faults.  (a Tokyo quake early last century killed like 100K)

Seattle could be destroyed by pyroclastic flows off of Rainer.

Mexico City is sinking and has a pyroclastic potential of Popo.

Paris is full of French people.

Lets abandon them all.

[Sandman]

I wonder about people that live in zones that are high risk for natural disastors.

Sure... I live in California. We have earthquakes. So, maybe this is a pot/kettle situation.

I watch the knuckleheads in Santa Monica piss and moan as their houses slide off the hillside, and I keep wondering why they build.

I see the houses in known flood zones and again, I wonder why they build.

Same goes for the people in tornado zones.

Certainly, there's a chance that they might survive a catastrophic event. You can build houses to survive things like floods and earthquakes. Houses in tornado zones are often built to protect the inhabitants, even if the house is destroyed.

Then there's New Orleans, built in an area where engineers are trying to beat the tide. In my opinion, it's was and always will be just a matter of time. It's not a matter of if. It's when.

[J_A_B]

Should we abandon California because sooner or later "the big one" WILL destroy the cities there?  San Francisco has been wrecked several times already.  You can't hide from nature.  Sooner or later, nature WILL Destroy what we build no matter WHERE we build it.  The fact is, these things don't tend to happen all that often.  When New Orleans eventually gets flooded again, we'll just pump it out and fix it again, just like how we rebuild anywhere else.

New Orleans isn't submerged under 200 feet of water.  It's not completely leveled.  It's a big filthy wet mess that'll take months to pump out and clean up.  Anything  at ground level which doesn't react well to being submerged will need to be replaced.   Point being--once drained back out, the major structures will be pretty much intact.  Wood frame houses are cheap to replace in comparison.  It will cost a lot to repair the city, but it'd cost even more to completely rebuild a new city in some other location.  Even if they did abandon it, you'd be looking at a massive cleanup bill in addition to the costs of building somewhere else.  

This is the perfect time for the Corps of Engineers to figure out ways to improve their levee system and make what improvements they can.  Hopefully they will.  Keep this in perspective guys--the only difference between the flooding in New Orleans and anywhere else is we have to drain out the water instead of waiting for mother nature to do it.  It's bad, but it's not the end of the world.

Those towns in Mississippi are a heck of a lot worse off than New Orleans.  Some of them really DO have to completely rebuild from scratch.  

Some people annoy me.  Anytime something bad happens they keep saying "oh it's so unbelievable!".  TV news is horrible for this.  Then then next time something bad happens, the same people say the same stupid things.  It's not "unbelievable".  Similar or worse levels of damage have happened elsewhere before plenty of times.  Look at Gavelston, Texas--they took it a lot worse than New Orleans when their "big one" hit.  We'll fix it and in 20 years it'll just be another one for the history books.

J_A_B

[megadud]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Holland is below sea level ...  alot of it anyway.

Venice has been flooded for a few centuries.

Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Tokyo are all built on faults.  (a Tokyo quake early last century killed like 100K)

Seattle could be destroyed by pyroclastic flows off of Rainer.

Mexico City is sinking and has a pyroclastic potential of Popo.

Paris is full of French people.

Lets abandon them all.

the paris one

i didn't know about 80% of that so thanks for the info. Now i know where not to move.

 Since you mentioned it we are about 40,00 years overdue for the super volcanoe to erupt in yellowstone.

 A mega tsunami could hit the entire east coast of USA any time that mounitan falls apart in north africa.

link of destruction

[Sandman]

Originally posted by J_A_B
Should we abandon California because sooner or later "the big one" WILL destroy the cities there?  

Don't bet on it. Earthquakes don't work this way.

[Staga]

This was just God's way to tell your people have been breaking against Him and I don't think you should rebuild the city ever again.

I blame Bush. Well maybe it was Clinton's fault. Or perhaps this disaster was scheduled decades ago and Nixon was responsible.

[J_A_B]

"Don't bet on it. Earthquakes don't work this way."

Are you joking?  

Tell that to San Fransicso in 1906 or Tokyo in 1923.  Earthquakes triggered events which wrecked much of both cities.   Kinda like how it isn't the Hurricane itself which has messed up New Orleans, but secondary effects caused by it.

J_A_B