[turtle777]

Ok, so sooner or later, we're gonna discuss this anyways. I know it's maybe a little too early, and other stuff is more important, but as far as most of us is concerned, all we really can do at this point is pray and donate money. And argue.

So the big question is: Does it make sense to rebuild New Orleans in its old spot ?
Many experts say that it doesn't, because the bad conditions and threats of future storms and floodings would only increase.

Should we just call it a day and instead of spending huge amounts on rebuilding a dead city, rather give the money to the people so they can start a new future somewhere else ?

Discuss.

-t

[Randman]

Rebuild it but don't make the same mistakes. Use hydraulic pumps like some European cities below sea level and at risk of flooding do. Make it better.

[paul w]

European cities below sea level don't have to deal with an increasing threat of hurricanes. And as we saw-pumps fail, levees fail yielding disastrous consequences.

I'd love to see New Orleans saved, but the realities of the Mississipi delta, the ever increasing threat of hurricanes like Katrina and the fact that's it's not clear how we'll be able to fix and rebuild since we haven't even been able to assess the magnitude of the damage - it doesn't look good.

But at this point we shouldn't talk about rebuilding until we can actually GET IN THERE and restore order and save the many stuck in chaos.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by paul w

But at this point we shouldn't talk about rebuilding until we can actually GET IN THERE and restore order and save the many stuck in chaos.

Who is we ?

Like I said, all I (ME!) can do is pray, donate and talk about it.
Only the latter I do in public.

-t

[paul w]

The Royal we of course. I'm doing the best I can. Hold on folks I'm a comin'!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by paul w

The Royal we of course.

Ah, the good old pluralis majestatis. We can do that, too!

-t

[wdlove]

I think that since New Orleans is already five feet below sea level and sinking, it would be best to abandon ti to the sea. No reason to have this problem continue.

[Scifience]

I don't think we should rebuild the city.

We should focus on getting the people and their posessions out of there and helping them relocate to somewhere else that isn't below sea level.

I'm sure the city will be rebuilt anyway, but I can't see dumping billions of dollars literally into the Gulf of Mexico. Another hurricane will no doubt come and destroy it all again. Also, since it has now been seen by the world how much damage can be caused by just a couple of broken leevies, I can imagine them being a nice terrorist target in the future.

[Mastrap]

New Orleans is more than just another city - it's a cultural icon. It's where Jazz originated, it's where the soul of the deep south lives. I don't think anybody who's ever been there, regardless of the tourist tack and high crime, could not notice the magic of the place. I've only been once, many years ago, but loved it immediately.

But the sad reality is that we might not have a choice but to abandon the place. The ground it is build on is sinking, the Mississippi delta that once protected the city has been destroyed by canal building a dredging. Maybe we can move the French quarter somewhere and let the rest just gently slide into history.

[RAILhead]

It was fun while it lasted, but all good things must come to an end. The time for New Orleans has passed.

[GranolaBoy]

Let it be like Atlantis. A fable. A myth.

"There used to be this city below the water level that threw wild parties. Now it's at the bottom of a lake."

"Really? I don't believe it. That just seems too crazy. "

[Atomic Rooster]

Waste of money to rebuild it where it is. The marshes that once protected New Orleans from flooding are gone to development. It's just going to happen again and again.

Best thing to do is clean up all the parts that are below sea level and let the sea remain.

The city was built in the worst possible location.

But of course they'll make the wrong choice.

[Captain Obvious]

As it was? Hell no.

I am the farthest person from being an environmentalist but the problem was that they stripped away too much of the marsh and swamp lands. Let nature reclaim what it needs to and then rebuild the parts of the city that could be managed safely in the event of another such disaster. The addition of these wetlands would serve as a buffer zone and allow run off and storage of water flowing towards the populated areas.
A smaller better designed city can withstand floods. And a smaller population in the immediate area would be more easily evacuated. I haven't seen the topography charts of the area but I assume the area north west of the lake must be at a slightly higher elevation. If that is the case It would probably be wise to promote development in that area and have the new New Orleans flourish there.

The problem will not come from relocation of the city but rather from compensation for the land that will now be rezoned as parks and wetlands. Given the already high cost of this disaster and the low value of the slums these people lived in they aren't going to get very much money to move. That unfortunately is just tough **** for them. As I have said repeated amount of times in natural disaster threads, the government has no business subsidizing insurance and housing in dangerous areas.
If you had little before this and risked it by living in a place where an inevitable disaster was going to get you then you need to face the responsibility of your decisions.

[Millennium]

They'll probably try to rebuild it in its old location, for the sake of historical preservation and to keep the seaport going. I don't think this is wise, but it's probably what they'll do. I think they should rebuild it in a nearby but safer location -possibly even at another place where they could build a port- and build museums and memorials to commemorate the old location. Depending on how close it is, the old location could even be turned into a kind of national park.

[Millennium]

I'm not sure I understand exactly how marshes could have protected New Orleans. If hurricanes need to be over water in order to build strength, then wouldn't dry land be more effective than marshes in dissipating a hurricane's strength? Or was it just that the fact that there would have some land between NOLA and the coast providing protection? It doesn't sound like wetlands would be as good as dry land in terms of providing protection, but certainly they'd be better than no land at all.

Is that what the problem was, as far as that goes: not so much the type of land that was being consumed, but more the fact that the city was building too far out? Or are wetlands somehow particularly effective at dissipating hurricanes, and if so then how does that work?

[Scifience]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Is that what the problem was, as far as that goes: not so much the type of land that was being consumed, but more the fact that the city was building too far out? Or are wetlands somehow particularly effective at dissipating hurricanes, and if so then how does that work?

The wetlands would likely have done nothing to help with the issue of the hurricane, other than providing a buffer as you described. However, the wetlands would have helped to prevent what was actually the larger of the two disasters: the flooding. The wetlands used to hold much of the water that was now pushing up against the leevies, providing the city with protection against flooding.

Of course, according to the Army Corp of Engineers, the leevies were only designed to withstand a Category 3 hurricane to begin with (source: press conference from this morning). President Bush cut the funding for the projects that would have upgraded the leevies protecting New Orleans so that they could have withstood a storm such as Katrina without breaking because the money was needed for tax cuts and the Iraq war.

A combination of better environmental protection policies and better funding for leevies would have prevented the majority of human casualties that the flooding in the aftermath of Katrina created. While a hurricane would still have caused damage, it would not have caused nearly the amount that the flooding did. Mississippi got hit hardest by the actual hurricane, yet they are far better off currently than New Orleans.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Scifience

Of course, according to the Army Corp of Engineers, the leevies were only designed to withstand a Category 3 hurricane to begin with (source: press conference from this morning). President Bush cut the funding for the projects that would have upgraded the leevies protecting New Orleans so that they could have withstood a storm such as Katrina without breaking because the money was needed for tax cuts and the Iraq war.

The funding was cut last year. This problem of inadequate protection has been around for decades. Even if you threw the entire state's road and highway budget at the project it would not have been done for many years. This storm would have still caused this damage if not more because the levee would have been in a transitional state.
It was the city and state that did not make the improvements a higher priority.

Nice try though, this wasn't preventable in the short run.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Scifience

Of course, according to the Army Corp of Engineers, the leevies were only designed to withstand a Category 3 hurricane to begin with (source: press conference from this morning). President Bush cut the funding for the projects that would have upgraded the leevies protecting New Orleans so that they could have withstood a storm such as Katrina without breaking because the money was needed for tax cuts and the Iraq war.

As was stated in another thread by someone else, the levee projects weren't in the places the failed, they still wouldn't have been able to withstand a cat 4 or 5, and they wouldn't have been done by now anyway.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by smacintush

As was stated in another thread by someone else, the levee projects weren't in the places the failed, they still wouldn't have been able to withstand a cat 4 or 5, and they wouldn't have been done by now anyway.

All worth noting. It doesn't change the fact that cutting the funding was risky, and there's no way they could have known when a storm would hit or which parts would and wouldn't fail if one did.

But if the levees wouldn't have been able to withstand a cat-4 or cat-5, then in fact the projects would not have made them significantly stronger than they were before. The fact that they were not given priority in the federal budget becomes more understandable in this case. If that's true, then what were the upgrades supposed to do, if not make the levees stronger? This is an honest question; I must have missed the post you're mentioning.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Millennium

All worth noting. It doesn't change the fact that cutting the funding was risky, and there's no way they could have known when a storm would hit or which parts would and wouldn't fail if one did.

But if the levees wouldn't have been able to withstand a cat-4 or cat-5, then in fact the projects would not have made them significantly stronger than they were before. The fact that they were not given priority in the federal budget becomes more understandable in this case. If that's true, then what were the upgrades supposed to do, if not make the levees stronger? This is an honest question; I must have missed the post you're mentioning.

Props to spacefreak for the link.

[ghporter]

New Orleans is one of the oldest European-built cities in North America, and is crammed FULL of history. And the historic French Quarter (with the OLDEST cathedral in North America) was not badly damaged. Of COURSE the city should be restored. But there are, as many of us have seen, thousands of exceedingly old houses in exceptionally poor neighborhoods that should be just wiped off the map and replaced with housing that is supportable. The PHYSICAL damage to the city itself, beyond the flooding, is relatively minor, particularly when compared to farther east in Mississippi. The levee system needs to be rethought, but more because the aging levees were just not built with the idea that a Cat 5 storm might come so close.

As for who the city should be restored for, I'd say that many thousands of people who have been looting for non-survival items should have other accomodations-at least in the rather notorious Louisiana state prison system.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by ghporter

New Orleans is one of the oldest European-built cities in North America, and is crammed FULL of history. And the historic French Quarter (with the OLDEST cathedral in North America) was not badly damaged. Of COURSE the city should be restored.

Because it's old? If a city is on grounds that are not safe to live in, should people really be living there? Or, let me put it this way: is it acceptable to build residences in an unsafe location, just for the sake of historic buildings located nearby?

Surely historical artifacts could be moved to museums in the new location. Buildings aren't practical to move, but I refer you to my idea of turning undamaged portions of the city (such as the French Quarter) into a kind of national park: a giant museum of sorts. If the non-movable history is truly so important, then this solution would allow people to continue experiencing it while keeping residences out of danger. If a disaster appeared imminent, the park could be closed and evacuated much more quickly and easily than an entire city.

[mr. natural]

The Mississippi's levees are the problem. Built to stop the springtime river flooding, they have stopped the nutrient rich muddy silt, sand & clay flushed down the Mississippi from spreading out across the marshes, nourishing them and replenishing what was lost to storms. Now, most of this sediment is lost out to sea, while up to 35 square miles of Louisiana's wetlands are eroded by the sea of the Gulf of Mexico. Up to 35 square miles of Louisiana's wetlands are lost every year, and an area the size of Rhode Island of wetlands have already been lost. And projections are that another area the size of Rhode Island, 640,000 acres, will disappear by 2050. Never mind the odds of another category 4-5 hurricane whacking New orleans again.

Flooding over the existing levees happened in the past, in 1927, 1940, 1967, and each time they tried throwing more dirt at the problem. But New Orleans is sinking at the same time that the river, lake, and ocean waters are rising around it. Now the levee's are breached and New Orleans is a water logged Dante's Inferno.

The fixes to this mess are neither easy or cheap, and given our propensity to repeating past mistakes we are likely to see nothing better done but to throw more dirt at the levees in order to repopulate a city of vast tragic and some good history that is doomed. I've been to Naw'leens and enjoyed it as a tourist, but I don't see much sense to fixing what is now broken and polluted almost beyond repair.

I'd prefer that we let nature run her course here, let the Mississippi run free again, and let the spring floods replenish what is lost of the marshes. That, in my mind, would be the wise choice - accommodating to reality of nature - and make the best of recreating a new New Orleans somewhere else where the past won't be so tragically repeated.

Fat Chance.

Oh well, just remember: Nature Doesn't Make Political Compromises With Anyone

[kmkkid]

The city should have been surrounded by a massive dyke.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by paul w

The Royal we of course. I'm doing the best I can. Hold on folks I'm a comin'!

We are LOLing

[TheMosco]

What about filling the portions that are under sea level in with dirt and bringing them above sea level for starters? Maybe something similar to how boston doubled its size?

Boston before and after the land fill

[Kevin Moon]

I believe the areas below sea level should not be rebuilt. The city needs to be moved to higher ground as it is both unsafe and a waste of money to rebuild below sea level on sinking ground. This will only get worse as sea level rises and storms become more frequent then in the recent past. The drainage and levee system the corps has built is partly to blame. This system is also responsible for the Mississippi for going by New Orleans at present. If the Old River complex wasn't built the Mississippi would be sending most of its waters down the Atchafalaya. The only reason this complex was built was to keep the river going past N.O. If this complex would be removed there would be a better area for a port as it would not require constant dredging to keep it open as the velocity of the water would be great enough to stay clear naturally for some time. Currently on the Mississippi dredging is a constant thing since the delta is overextended and doesn't provide water velocities high enough to clear out the sediments in the channel that the corps maintains. So by moving N.O. to a new spot say the Atchafalaya Bay this would provide a better area for a port and a city as that area is above sea level. Letting the Mississippi take this course would also slow the drop of the coastal areas to the west and slow the rate that Louisiana is losing land. It would save the govt. a lot of money by not having the Old River complex in place and not dredging like has to be done on the delta of the Mississippi. Some dredging would be needed on the Atchafalaya but not on the scale needed currently on the current delta.

[Scifience]

Originally Posted by smacintush

As was stated in another thread by someone else, the levee projects weren't in the places the failed, they still wouldn't have been able to withstand a cat 4 or 5, and they wouldn't have been done by now anyway.

I stand corrected. I did not realize that, and appreciate the link.

[dreilly1]

I don't think there's any discussion needed. The parts of New Orleans that have been destroyed will be rebuilt, if for no other reason that there will always be people who want to live there, in spite of the risks, and it's not our place to tell them it's too dangerous. At the same time, many of the people who have the means to leave the city and settle somewhere else temporarily will decide to stay there, and many businesses who do not need to be in New Orleans because of its unique geography will also leave. So it will likely become smaller.

This will proceed like this regardless of what the Intarweb thinks. Hopefully we can use the technology at our disposal to make the parts of New Orleans that are rebuilt safer.

[Scifience]

Originally Posted by dreilly1

I don't think there's any discussion needed. The parts of New Orleans that have been destroyed will be rebuilt, if for no other reason that there will always be people who want to live there, in spite of the risks, and it's not our place to tell them it's too dangerous.

It is the government's place to tell people that they cannot live there when allowing them to do so costs taxpayers billions (trillions?) of dollars to rebuild a city that will just flood again the next time a huge hurricane comes through, starting the process all over again. Fighting Mother Nature is a losing battle.

If people want to live there despite the government telling them not to, more power to them, but don't expect the feds to come bail you out the next time the city floods.

[DeathToWindows]

I'm in the camp that says to not rebuild it... redo the parts above sea level, but not those below.

[jcadam]

Originally Posted by Scifience

Of course, according to the Army Corp of Engineers, the leevies were only designed to withstand a Category 3 hurricane to begin with (source: press conference from this morning). President Bush cut the funding for the projects that would have upgraded the leevies protecting New Orleans so that they could have withstood a storm such as Katrina without breaking because the money was needed for tax cuts and the Iraq war.

The federal government has no business funding such civic improvements. That is the state government's job.

That said, the majority of NO residents had their homes and places of employment wiped out. What is there to go back to? If I were a wise NO resident, who left before Katrina hit, once I saw the extent of the damage, I would be looking for another city to relocate to. I couldn't wait months/years for the city to be restored so I could get back to making a living.

Get the survivors out, let the sea take it. Maybe when the next ice age starts and the oceans begin receding once more, y'all can start up Mardi Gras again.

[glyph]

Make the lower lying areas a land-fill. Then rebuild.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by jcadam

The federal government has no business funding such civic improvements. That is the state government's job.

Why would you believe this? The feds help fund roads and bridges, why not levees?

[Mediaman_12]

The smart thing to do would be to tidy up what's flooded, so it's evnviromentaly stable and build somewhere else, perhaps not on uncompacted river sedement, or a few inches above sea level.
Unfortunately what is likely to haappen is that the Goverment, in an attempt to repair it's damaged image will throw a pile of cash at the 'rebuilding of New Orleans'. only for a repeat in a 10 or so years when Katrina is a distant memory.