Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on September 01, 2005, 06:07:39 AM
-
...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
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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..........
-
funding will be a big issue I think... who will back loans for builders as vulnerable as that area is?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 :rofl :rofl :rofl
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 (http://armageddononline.tripod.com/volcano.htm)
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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
-
Earthquakes can be some pretty nasty mofos.
1908 Dec 28 Italy, Messina 70,000 to 100,000 dead
1923 Sep 1 Japan, Kanto 143,000 dead
1927 May 22 China, Tsinghai 200,000 dead
1970 May 31 Peru 66,000 dead
1976 Jul 27 China, Tangshan 255,000 dead (officially)
1906...
(http://library.thinkquest.org/03oct/00904/images/sanf_k.jpg)
-
Originally posted by 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
You wrote... that there would be a big one that will destroy the state. Don't bet on it.
Certainly, there's a good chance that San Francisco or Los Angeles are in for a big one, but there's more to this state than just those two cities.
One also cannot compare the devastation of an earthquake in a third world country or 100 years ago to what would happen here and now. Hmmm... what was the last one in China or Mexico last year (I can't remember)? IIRC, it hit somewhere in the 6.5 scale and left an enormous amount of damage. Compare to a 6.5 in Los Angeles recently and it's relatively minor if it's noticeable at all.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
IIRC, it hit somewhere in the 6.5 scale and left an enormous amount of damage. Compare to a 6.5 in Los Angeles and it's barely noticeable.
So with properly designed buildings and infrastructure, a city can withstand a natural disaster...
So with proper pumps and backups, better levee systems, hurricane building codes, New Orleans will rize.
-
I didn't say the entire state would be destroyed all at once. Sorry if you took that way. I'm not one of those idiots who thinks California will "fall into the ocean". I said the "big one" will eventually destroy the cities. That means sooner or later San Fran is going to be wrecked (again), LA will be, etc etc. Not necessarily at the same time. Point is, the only way to prevent that from happening is to abandon all of them since we don't know which one is next, or when.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So with properly designed buildings and infrastructure, a city can withstand a natural disaster...
So with proper pumps and backups, better levee systems, hurricane building codes, New Orleans will rize.
Sure... and then it will fall. You cannot stop the tide forever.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
I didn't say the entire state would be destroyed all at once. Sorry if you took that way. I'm not one of those idiots who thinks California will "fall into the ocean". I said the "big one" will eventually destroy the cities. That means sooner or later San Fran is going to be wrecked (again), LA will be, etc etc. Not necessarily at the same time. Point is, the only way to prevent that from happening is to abandon all of them since we don't know which one is next, or when.
J_A_B
I'm not so sure that we'll ever see the kind of devastation in San Francisco or Los Angeles that we see today in New Orleans.
-
Short of building a 360 degree Hoover dam around it, chances are it will happen again. The way nature is..probably even that would be breached. The thing is..they had 40 years of breathing room from the last one. The chances of another hitting there AGAIN within the next few weeks is a possibility. There is a meaning behind the phrase.."Ive got some prime swamp land for sale if you're interested."
-
Tell the Dutch they can't hold back the tide.
-
Dutch have very impressive systems protecting their country from rising sea levels; part of the system are floating dams which are like quarter sector (or less) of a wheel hinged from center and dam itself is made from concrete and has dozens of high-volume pumps inside.
If water level at sea rises the floating dams, one in each side of a river, are moved together and sinked to the bottom of the sea by opening the hatches.
When "situation" is over the pumps unload the water ballast from dams making them floating again and after that they can be easily pulled apart and open the waterway for ships.
I saw VERY cool pics of the system when I was visiting Grundfos (pump manufacturer); trying to see if I can find any pics from the web.
-
"I'm not so sure that we'll ever see the kind of devastation in San Francisco or Los Angeles that we see today in New Orleans."
And two months ago we weren't sure if New Orleans would ever be flooded by the aftermath of a major hurricane. That's the problem with natural disasters---you can't really predict them. When they happen, some people stand around saying "I told you so", while others clean up and rebuild.
If a monster F5 tornado were to hit downtown Topeka and wipe it out (it could happen), we'd be seeing the same people saying "it was stupid to ever build there in the middle of Tornado Alley, just relocate". How about all those thousands of communities built on the Mississippi floodplain which get flooded out and destroyed every now and then? Pretty dumb to build there too, isn't it? I guess we should relocate those people.
Fact is, there aren't many places you can relocate to where nature won't eventually destroy what man builds.
J_A_B
-
I agree JAB. But rebuilding inside an area thats below sea level, thats so open to disaster isnt too bright.
-
It is inevitable the West Coast will change once it hits the Mariannas trench. Only thing to prevent it would be a shift in the continental drift.
We'll all be gone by then. Or the Moon will have departed and we *all* will be gone. One way or the other, we are toast. Some faster than others.
-
Quite often it's cheaper to build new than repair old structures and what I've heard is the city has to be rebuilt from the sewers and electric lines up...
Could be good idea to build "New New Orleans" 50km iaway from the shore.
-
<<< must not be too bright
Damn right I'll rebuild.
Would be nice if they beefed up the levees some though.
-
"But rebuilding inside an area thats below sea level, thats so open to disaster isnt too bright."
Granted, New Orleans isn't exactly prime real estate. It's swampy wasteland actually. Unfortunately, it just so happens that this swampy wasteland is the exit/entry point of the largest commerical waterway in the mainland US. It has to be there--there's nowhere else it can be.
Now, that doesn't mean the city wasn't built in an especially vulnerable manner. That's something I'd agree with. When it's repaired, we have the opportunity to make it batter than it was before. As much of the power and communications grid as possible needs to be above flood level as do at least some roadways (a network of elevated roadways would work well here). Buildings in especially low parts of the city need to be on raised foundations. There is NO excuse for houses to be totally submerged to the point where people drown in their attics. The sewer and pump systems need to be enlarged in capacity. Waste treatment simply has to be located out away from the low areas--if this means piping it miles away, so be it.
Lets hope the people rebuilding make the most of this opportunity.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It is inevitable the West Coast will change once it hits the Mariannas trench. Only thing to prevent it would be a shift in the continental drift.
Hmmm... will the west coast ever hit the Marianas Trench? AFAIK, the trench is created because it's in the subduction zone between the pacific and philippine plates.
-
Sandy, the trench was formed due to the plates slipping under each other causing the rise of the wall. It is a descending plate, versus a subducted plate, which I believe you are thinking of.
Typically, subducted plates fill the trench with sediment as they rise. Subducted plates are normally associated with the formation of mountains, while descending plates are known for forming trenches.
Think of one plate being flat, then another plate breeching it at a downward angle. The push then causes the flat plate to rise upwards forming the wall of the trench as it breaks and the other side is pushed up.
-
Hmmm... maybe I was sleeping in class, but I recall that the subducted plate is the one that's going down.
I'm a little confused though. AFAIK, the pacific plate is moving northwest, so is the philippine plate overtaking it?
-
Subducted plates do go down, or maybe it would be more appropriate to say they are angled, but moving parallel to the surface (much like a scraper removing paint from a plank of wood), whereas a descending plate is actually moving downward away from the surface (sinking, as it were, cutting/breeching into the plate below it).
As far as who is chasing who, I need to crack open the books. I cannot recall with any certainty about that.
I do have an excellent cross-section of the trench and the platonic activity which formed it (a series of images). I'll see if I can find it Sandman.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So with properly designed buildings and infrastructure, a city can withstand a natural disaster...
So with proper pumps and backups, better levee systems, hurricane building codes, New Orleans will rize.
With who footing the bill? I'm certain the insurance companies
and governments have no trouble passing the costs along.
-
Same way any other disaster preparedness is paid.
Same way we paid for the World Series or Northridge quakes, Hugo, Andrew, 9/11...
-
Its going to take hundreds of billions of dollars in government
and private funds to do it. Would it be better to move inland a few miles to higher ground and start a new city free from needing a levee system.
Just wondering what other folk think about it.
-
Why what happened?
-
If NO did not exsist we would need to build it. Keep in mind it is a major shipping port that gets all the Mississippi river traffic.
-
If they don't rebuild NO, then all the girls will have to go to Cancun to get their beads.
-
Theres simply too much property for the people to just forget about it.
-
It would be easier to build most of the city from scratch at a new location.
As it is, rebuilding at the present site would have to start below ground, with the water system, and require the refurbishing of every building from the inside out.....including wiring, plaster, wall-board, shingles, windows, paint, etc.
-
Not all of New Orleans is damaged. I was watching a news report and major parts of the city were undamaged. Bourbon street is untouched, not even looted. The rebuilding issue thus only applies to the parts of the city that were flooded.
Quite simply they are going to have to build flood defences to prevent it happening again.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Tell the Dutch they can't hold back the tide.
How often does any country in Europe get hit with hurricanes?
The southeastern US can count on it virtually every year.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Not all of New Orleans is damaged. I was watching a news report and major parts of the city were undamaged. Bourbon street is untouched, not even looted. The rebuilding issue thus only applies to the parts of the city that were flooded.
Quite simply they are going to have to build flood defences to prevent it happening again.
They meaning "we" here in the US. Since the federal
government is going to foot a huge part of the bill, I'd say this
question is a valid one for debate.
-
Originally posted by Rino
How often does any country in Europe get hit with hurricanes?
The southeastern US can count on it virtually every year.
Tropical hurricanes needs 27 deg (celcius) water to form so you wont find them here.
-
As I said on the FDB bbs, are you a bunch of commies?
Those of you that want to rebuild NO where it was, feel free to invest your own hard earned cash into it. Just don't advocate your government taxing the other people to pay for it.
-
There nothing 'redeeming' about rebuilding NO. Its basically a crap whole that throws a good party once a year.
I say flush it...
-
Why to rebuild another Atlantida?!
i didn't belive the fast Global warming crap untill 1996 when i traveled in Alaska
Glaciar Bay Alaska foto 1941
(http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2004/12/17/mn_usgsmuir1941.jpg)
Glaciar Bay Alaska foto 2004
(http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2004/12/17/mn_usgsmuir2004.jpg)
... and the future
(http://resumbrae.com/archive/warming/americaMap.jpg)
-
Originally posted by MX555
They should use that new law and condem the whole city and raise it up 1 foot above sea level.
Actually, 2 feet above sea level might be better, the lake to the north sits 1 foot above sea level.
-
pave it and build a parking lot.