Why should we spend money to rebuild a city that in 50 or so years is likely to be wiped out by another hurrucane? As long as it is below sea level, it is always going to be at risk.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Your timing is impeccable. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I think that pretty much epitomizes the eternal struggle of mankind.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I don't think that we as humans usually do things because they are easy or without risk. To defy our limitations and to challenge the forces that we cannot control is what makes us human.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Let me guess. Alan Parsons Project :-)
But seriously:
Why should we [build lives and create works] that in [generations or centuries] is likely to be wiped out by [global warming, world war, an asteroid, an ice age]? As long as [we are human], [our works] are always going to be at risk.
The rhetoric around such a sweeping question would tend to obscure even more practical issues, such as: should redevelopment include stricter protection of wetland coastline -- that can serve as a natural buffer to hurricane storm surges -- and restrain rampant greed of developers? Etc.
(edit, typo; also: what camus said )
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It does make sense though, to lower risk as much as possible. This city had storm walls (levees?) and they failed. Of course every civilization/city is going to fall eventually, but that doesn't mean we should try not to save as many lives.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I don't think we should stop whoever wants to rebuild New Orleans, but I don't think the government should put federal dollars toward it.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Let's take it one step futher than the levees and city under sea level situation and build New New Orleans as an undersea dome city. Isn't it about time we had one of those?
--Enigmatic
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: It does make sense though, to lower risk as much as possible. This city had storm walls (levees?) and they failed. Of course every civilization/city is going to fall eventually, but that doesn't mean we should try not to save as many lives.
I believe the levees are partially to blame for the damage. They're supposed to protect the city from regular flooding from the Mississippi, but they've helped destroy the wetlands around the city. The wetlands would have slowed the storm down and taken some of its energy.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oh, okay. I don't know much about it. Until a couple of days ago, I wouldn't have known even where New Orleans was expect for "somewhere in the south".
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
I don't mean to sound blunt, but it sounds like a lot of you have either never been to New Orleans, or went and didn't really SEE it. New Orleans is a huge cultural hub. It's one of Louisiana's finest assets. Without it, our state is going to go under financially: Most of our shipping trade comes through there. Most of our financial headquarters are there. MILLIONS of people call this place their home, and half of them are responsible for keeping a lot of this state up and running. Tourism is huge in New Orleans...that brings in a pretty big chunk of the economy. Also, New Orleans is kind of like a haven to bored Louisianians seeking something to do on the weekend. We could go to the Aquarium, the IMAX, the zoo, the art galleries, or simply just walk around downtown and enjoy the eccentricity of it all. Without it, the state is bereft. I know it's hard to expect you to understand this since you don't live here, but it's like the heart of LA is missing.
Of course we should rebuild. It might take years, but with today's technology, the city can be rebuilt to be safer and even more protected from natural disasters. It's inevitable that they will come again, but next time we CAN be prepared.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
And also, to add to what Avaduru said, New Orleans is one of the oldest settlements in America, with the possible exception of Newfoundland.
It's been a city since the late 1500s - early 1600s. I'm not sure we should bulldoze it because it got wet 400 years later.
We can rebuild it, bigger, stronger. We have the technology.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Robocop!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wouldn't it make more sense to rebuild somewhere else?
(BTW, Blaine, what's being quoted there is not Robocop.)
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
That's what I was thinking. Build new things in a safer location, if you have to practically start from scratch.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I don’t have a problem with rescue efforts and all that. But why should government funds go to rebuild in disaster prone areas? Isn’t that insurances job to pay for?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
You kinda have to start from scratch, but kinda don't.
Much of the electric/telecom infrastructure can be repaired. Building this from scratch would be massively expensive. The other key is that, New Orleans is already owned. How would they relocate the entire city? Get someone to swap them out an equal amount of land somewhere else in the state, and rebuild the city exactly as it was?
I really can't think of a way to make this work. If someone has one, I'd love to hear it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
And Jay, in the grand scheme of government expenditure, I think federal aid for disaster relief is one of the least questionable activities.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:But why should government funds go to rebuild in disaster prone areas?
Every place is prone to some type of disaster. We have tornoadoes where I live. Other places have earthquakes, and some places have hurricanes. There are not too many places to relocate to that provide security from natural disasters while offering certain geographic benefits.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Isn’t that insurances job to pay for?
You know that insurance will only pay for so much, right? They hit a cap and don't cover all losses. Plus, lots of buildings that were insured years ago won't be able to be rebuilt for the amount they were insured for.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:and rebuild the city exactly as it was?
There's no way it's going to be exactly the way it was anyway.
I agree with muppet. I don't think government funds should be used to rebuild.
I can't even imagine what all the refugees are going through right now. Even the ones who were able to evacuate early and had family or friends to take them in. They have no homes, no jobs, no schools... nothing to go back to and no idea when they will have. It's mind boggling, but no matter whether we rebuild New Orleans or not, those people will have to start over completely. It might as well be in a safer place.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I’m not saying anything about disaster relief. But I know even in my hometown there is a guy who owns the Anna Jarvis birth place and has some kind of museum or something set up across the road from the house. Well…. This is in a flood plane and pretty much every year gets flooded. And he gets money all the time from the flood to rebuild. Sort of like the town joke. So….. why should our tax dollars go to this sort of thing? My point is they don’t pay for the 100 car pile up on the interstate and no one would even consider the government having to pay for that. So why doesn’t insurance have to be the ones that pay for the rebuilding (note rebuilding, not recovery).
Not sure I feel very comfortable talking about this though while people are still dying down there….. But it is sort of an on going thing every time
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:But why should government funds go to rebuild in disaster prone areas?
Every place is prone to some type of disaster. We have tornoadoes where I live. Other places have earthquakes, and some places have hurricanes. There are not too many places to relocate to that provide security from natural disasters while offering certain geographic benefits.
Of course everyplace is prone to something, but from what I've been reading, NO has been a focus of disaster planners for decades, with its unique location and vulnerabilities. There are many cities in hurricane prone areas who are far better able to withstand the storms than NO. That in itself is not a reason to rebuild on the same spot.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Much of Little Rock is built in a flood plane.. so naturally every year it would flood and every year state and federal tax dollars would go to the clean up. It always made me furious to see all that money going to waste when it was just going to be spent again next year when it floods.
But then.. all of you know my opinion of the government spending other people's money....
Pix
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That's a beautiful sentiment, much like "War is bad". But I still would like to hear a feasible alternative to rebuilding the city where it stands now. I really can't think of a way to make that work.
So no matter how little sense it makes, I don't see any choice but to rebuild there.
Also, rebuilding and recovery are the same thing in this case. There will be no recovery until enough stuff is rebuilt to allow the city to be self-sustaining.
EDIT: this is to Jay and maui-babe, not Pixie.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wait, so a city that has survived for 400 years has on catastrophic accident and it's suddenly accident prone? What if it's another 400 years until something happens again?
Yes it should be rebuilt, but smarter. This is the perfect chance to take environmental concerns into account, to build stronger levees. Does anyone know how old the levees are that broke? They also can build better drainage to get rid of storm surge. If Washington DC or New York were in this situation, no one would be questioning the rebuilding. We're still building skyscrapers even though we know terrorists feel compelled to knock them down.
It's the 21st century. If we can spend billions of dollars on the Big Dig in Boston, and billions on a water pipe in New York, we can spend billions rebuilding one of America's oldest cities, and making it hurricane proof.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
johnsonweed -- I wish you had your e-mail address in your profile. You have this way of starting controversial threads, and then dropping off the face of the earth (or at least out of the conversation) for a a couple of days.....
FG
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
My other comment is that it's hardly a case of yearly flooding in New Orleans. This is a hundred year storm.
I agree with Lyrhawn, they should take this opportunity to improve the levy and pump system.
Lyr, New Orleans doesn't really have a 'drainage system' per se, because all the storm water has to go uphill to get back into the lake. But they could easily upgrade the pumps.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: I don’t have a problem with rescue efforts and all that. But why should government funds go to rebuild in disaster prone areas? Isn’t that insurances job to pay for?
Federal Disaster aid only covers necessities, and is only a temporary stop-gap unitl insurance companies can get involved. In most cases, federal aid (grants or loans) has to be deducted from whatever amount of money is given to you by the insurance company. Also, the gentleman that you refer to probably has national flood insurance which is expensive and covers this type of situation...
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
No, NewOrleans was never a city until after the 1803 LouisianaPurchase. In fact that is why Napoleon sold the territory: A British Under-Secretary of the Exchequer granted asylum in France -- he was fleeing the Crown's arrest warrant for malfeasance in office -- created a stock swindle in which the village-on-a-disease-ridden-swamp of NewOrleans was touted as a thriving metropolis (with "natives just jumping to seize the opportunity to become civilized slaves") soaked up so much capital that the French currency was being pulled under. With the economy nearing collapse due to the lack of valid backing of their monetary system, Napoleon's treasury needed gold so badly that when the US offered $2million to purchase the port of NewOrleans, the French had to counter-offer the sale of the entire LouisianaTerritory for $15million.
[ September 01, 2005, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
You know, it's 2005. We should really have the better giant dome building technology that scifi promised us.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I think America needs a Venice... How about give into the watered streets?? It could be really nice.
I hear Venice stinks, though. I've never been there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Venice is wonderful. It does not stink.
It is, however, sinking into the sea almost visibly. They are very lucky there are no hurricanes in the Mediterranean.
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
Venice feels musty all the time. It's so humid, it feels like nothing drys up. It's weird. Venice is a great place to go for a couple days, just to see it, but I wouldn't ever want to go back there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House was recently quoted in Chicago as saying "is makes little sense to sink billions of dollars into rebuilding NO" and that "much of it should be bulldozed"
Later he tried to spin that and say he was advocating better safety measures.
Oops, about the drainage thing, I didn't take that into account, but I agree a better pumping system could make up for that.
Further, on a purely dork point, NOLA wasn't the reason Napoleon sold the LA purchase to America, and Jefferson certainly didn't buy it not knowing what he was getting. Jefferson already had delegates in France attempting to buy NOLA all by itself when Napoleon offered the LA purchase. He'd previously sent thousands of French troops to Santo Domingo to stop the uprising of Toussaint Louverture, an uprising slave who led a revolt of the slave population. He was eventually captures and extradited to France, but yellow fever was killing the French soldiers by the thousands and French coffers were being quickly depleted. Jefferson sent the delegates to buy NOLA fearing they would lose the right to use the port.
So, they actually were trying to buy JUST NOLA from Napoleon and knew exactly what they were getting, but he offered the entire purchase instead in an attempt to rid himself of the whole mess, and get some money out of the deal. But the main factors were the losses on Santo Domingo.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
It wasn't merely a matter of getting some extra money to play with, the purpose of the sale was to save the French economy from currency collapse. The Caribbean rebellion was only a side issue which made other strategic considerations lean toward favoring the sale.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"It wasn't merely a matter of getting some extra money to play with"
Who said it was?
And it wasn't merely a side issue. The Caribbean rebellion was the largest reason why Napoleon decided to abandon French territories in North America. And also, efforts expended to STOP the rebellion is what led to much of the lack of funds that put the French economy in that position to begin with. So yes, you can call the currency issue the most important one, but the rebellion caused it and ended it.
Regardless, this wasn't my main point, it was about NOLA.
Posted by Audeo (Member # 5130) on :
Rebuilding New Orleans is going to mean more than just rebuilding the buildings and streets, as would have been done in Florida after a similar hurricane. What makes New Orleans so much worse is the fact that it lies beneath sea-level, and is protected by a tenuous network or pumps, levees, dams, and canals. The city runs pumps to prevent the streets from flooding during average rainstorms.
Furthermore the wetlands that protect the city from storm surge, and even natural erosion, are disappearing through erosion. Rivers do not run through a continuous course. Even small rivers are known to divert their course several miles in as little time as a century. When people live on the delta of a river as large as the Mississippi they aren't really living on dry land. If the river were left to its natural movement it would create 'new' land and cover existing dry land after every major rain storm, but especially during yearly floods. Because the Mississippi is so heavily controlled, this 'new' land is prevent from forming. So much of the coast of Louisiana is being eroded away without being replaced by the sediment of annual floods.
quote: Several factors — most human-made — have contributed to the steady decline of the delta at the bottom of the Mississippi. But most of the erosion is blamed on the levees, which faithfully steer all the water from the Mississippi into the Gulf of Mexico. That prevents occasional flooding, keeping area residents above water most of the time. But one unforeseen consequence of the levees has been to cut off wetlands from their life force.
The regular floods served nature's purpose by feeding the delta, bringing fresh water and sediment that served to sustain life and replenish the wetlands. Without the regular flooding, the wetlands naturally “compact.”
About $14 billion is needed for a variety of projects, including diverting river water and manually depositing sediment. Even still, it’ll take about 20 years to reverse the effects erosion, she said.
That $14 billion was an estimate of what it would have cost before the hurricane. In the hurricane many key parts of the levee system were severely destroyed. This could make it less expensive, because sediment that has to be cleared out anyways is readily available, so the disaster could be a chance to gain some ground (literally). But it could also make it more expensive if these older levees have to be replaced in addition to building the newer system to help fix the problem in the long term.
It would probably be best if civil engineers, geologists, and environmental scientists teamed up to evaluate the situation post-Katrina, but realistically there are millions of people eagerly waiting to get back to their lives and who will remain homeless and jobless until the city is fixed. So I suspect that the relief money from the government and private organizations will be used to fund 'quick-fixes' that will make the city inhabitable now. This may make it uninhabitable fifty years from now, but hey, we have plenty of time to do something before then, right?
For an idea of how severe coastal erosion is in Louisiana here are a few pictures and websites that seek to show the extent of the problem: P.A.C.E. ; USGS ; Restore or Retreat .
Back to the main question, do I think it is worth it to rebuild New Orleans? I don't think we can afford not to for three main reasons. First New Orleans is an important shipping port, the Mississippi River. Figures vary but over a hundred million tons of cargo go through the port of New Orleans every year, including roughly 60% of US grain exports. Secondly New Orleans is a very important historically. In its own way it rivals Philadelphia, New York, and DC for historical significance. Thirdly, just as those cities it is a culture center for the deep south. The only city comparable to it in the South might be Atlanta. (NB: the nearest I've been to the southeast is Pennsylvania or maybe Utah, whichever is closer).
So yeah, New Orleans is always going to be at risk, and its going to cost a lot of money to rebuild it, but we've already invested a lot money and time in making not only liveable but a vital part of our economy and history. To give up at this point would be a little fool-hardy. Furthermore if we didn't rebuild we would still have to do something with the millions of people who live there. There just isn't any place in our country to take them in for the long term. Economically there isn't a region that would be able to provide jobs for the refugees, and new homes would have to be built for people who have nothing. They have no clothing or food, and most of them might not have funds available to purchase these things in the short term let alone the long term. The real reason why we'll rebuild New Orleans, and do it quickly regardless of cost, or long-term stability is that there are millions of people who need to get their lives back, and New Orleans is most convenient place to put them.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm sad that no matter what happens, I think NO will never be the same. It was an amazing place, in part, because of all the old structures and the chance to visit historical settings pretty much unchanged by time.
I can't imagine not having a thriving city on that site though. It just doesn't make sense.
But maybe they'll do something better than levees this time?
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: johnsonweed -- I wish you had your e-mail address in your profile. You have this way of starting controversial threads, and then dropping off the face of the earth (or at least out of the conversation) for a a couple of days.....
FG
Sorry FG,
The semester has started and I have trouble getting back here regularly.
JW
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
I didn't mean to sound so brutal when asking the original question. I loved the many times I have been to 'Nawlins, but I still wonder of it will be worth the cost. I understand that the city is the heart of the state, and perhaps with Atlanta, the heart of the South. The problem is that it will not be the same. I would hate to see a Disney-fied version of the way it used to be with faux finishes, etc. There are many cities that are built in places that should not have cities, like Venice and even Mexico City. My fundamental question is since we have to rebuild so much, is it worth rebuilding it where it will likely be lost again?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Should New Orleans be rebuilt?
I vote "yes". That the question could be seriously considered is shocking. I am horrified at the news reports coming from there. It will take a lot of time and a huge amount of effort.
And quite a bit more than $6 million, JT.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: But maybe they'll do something better than levees this time?
Under. Sea. DOMES! I swear, it's like you're not even paying attention.
--Enigmatic
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
You know that the levees were designed to withstand Cat 3 hurricanes because a cost benefit analysis was done and it was decided that bigger ones were not cost effective. Ironic?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Moving it would cost more than to build it safely right where it is.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I like the idea of either a US Venice or under sea domes. Seriously. Either of those would be cool. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
If you lived in an under water bubble, would you need an eruv? If you can't see the sky, how do you know when to daaven? If you live in a bubble, can you grow a garden? What if it were hydoponic? Do you still say "ha'adomah"? Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Seriously? US Venice and undersea domes?
::thinks about it::
Actually, it does sound neat. But not for NOLA.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Sure, you can rebuild buildings where buildings once stood. But you can't force it to be New Orleans again. That won't happen. Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Venice is sinking....
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No it won't be exactly the same. But it's the people that make a city a city, more so than the buildings.
Maybe France would be willing to help with the architecture of rebuilding the old French Quarter.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
If it's people that make a city more so than buildings, than why can't they build it where it can actually survive for more than a mere couple hundred years?
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Because what makes the city more than the people or the buildings is the port, which we need for commerce. And that's the spot with the best water access.
Or so I understand things.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A mere couple hundred years? A couple hundred years is all America has existed for.
I think we should look to the Netherlands:
quote:As U.S. military engineers struggled to shore up breached levees, experts in the Netherlands expressed surprise that New Orleans' flood systems failed to restrain the raging waters.
With half of the country's population of 16 million living below sea level, the Netherlands prepared for a "perfect storm" soon after floods in 1953 killed 2,000 people. The nation installed massive hydraulic sea walls.
If they can do it, we can do it.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Of course New Orleans should be rebuilt. It is a national, possibly international, treasure, an important port, and the home to millions. Many who live there would rather live no where else because they love it.
Maybe it's too early to assign blame, but the suvivors are seething, so it may be appropriate now. It's clear that the city and the state had no practical plan for a disaster. Maybe it was arrogance, or maybe it was stupidity, but many people along the line screwed up.
I don't want to take a High and Mighty stance here because I am not effected directly, and I have never been near Louisiana, but some reading of the news has made a few things jump out at me as being obvious: The evacuation started a day too late, the city offered little or no help for getting the poor and infirm out, and the city sent it's people out without guidance on how to be taken in elsewhere.
Of course people should have their own plans, and I hope that many did the smart thing and made disaster plans. The reality is, many people didn't or couldn't do that, and it is one job of the government to protect citizens in a disaster. The local, state, and federal levels did little for the citizens of New Orleans and Louisiana prior to the storm.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: If you lived in an under water bubble, would you need an eruv?
That depends. How many people pass daily on the larger thoroughfares?
quote: If you can't see the sky, how do you know when to daaven?
First of all, maybe you can see the sky. How deep would the water be? Even if not, it shouldn't be a problem. They'll do like what they do in northern Alaska, and go by the closest city that has a normal sunset.
quote: If you live in a bubble, can you grow a garden? What if it were hydroponic? Do you still say "ha'adomah"?
Didn't you ever make one of those garden-in-a-jar terrariums in school? (I did, and guess who with? ) Gardens shouldn't be a problem. And whether it were grown using hydroponics or not, the bracha would be ha'adomah.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
This from the Washington Post...
quote:"A huge chunk of America's heritage - the remnants of what was once France's largest North American colony, a Creole culture unique on this continent - is in severe jeopardy,"
This says what I feel. New Orleans is one of the oldest settlements on the continent. It needs to be preserved as a living place.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: If it's people that make a city more so than buildings, than why can't they build it where it can actually survive for more than a mere couple hundred years?
Explain Naples.
Posted by B-HAX (Member # 6640) on :
Move to Ohio...we only have tornadoes, but not in the cities. No ocean to look at, but really who cares. Ocean brings death. Vote no on oceans.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: Let's take it one step futher than the levees and city under sea level situation and build New New Orleans as an undersea dome city. Isn't it about time we had one of those?
I've been thinking about it. If the flooding is bad when a couple of levees fail, then imagine the horrors if the bubble is breached.
So, I'm voting "no" on the under sea bubbles.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
rivka, here's another question:
If the whole city is reliant on levees, who get the first aliyah?
Posted by KEGE (Member # 424) on :
I'm not reading anything that anyone has written except the initial question. (Not because I don't want to hear your opinions but am afraid of reading something that would make me too angry.)
Yes, New Orleans can and will be rebuilt. A city is not static. It will not be the same as it was the day Katrina hit and the levee broke. That New Orleans will never be back - just as the New Orleans from 1800s or 1920s or 1950s, etc. will never be back. The New Orleans where my daughter was born is not the New Orleans that it was last Sunday before the storm hit.
It would inconceivable to allow a city in the USA to be an abandoned wasteland, an Escape from New York scenario, while we rebuild foreign cities.
To even suggest to not rebuild is UNTHINKABLE.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I don't think it should be rebuilt below sea level. That's like rebuilding the WTC without trying to stop hijackings.
Anybody here from NO?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I lived there for several years, and still have family in Slidell, plus family on the MS gulf coast.
Yes it will be rebuilt, but I think there will be a substantially lower population, at least for a while. Already many refugees in TX are saying they don't plan on leaving, they want to start over and set up roots in TX or other states.
Many of the people evacuated were the poorest of the poor. They don't have jobs to go back to, many of them lived in government housing or government subsidized housing and have no homes to go back to and no checks from insurance companies to look forward to. Other than roots in the area itself, they have no lure back to the city - all their family that might have lived in N.O. has also been uprooted.
We have hundreds of people here in Bham. I wonder how many regugees/evacuees, whatever you want to call them might just stay here. Can our schools absorb that many new students, without any additional tax revenues to help pay for it? What about our hospitals, our public health services, our infrastructure, can it take this new influx? I'm not saying that as a way of saying "We don't want or need evacuees here" I'm saying it because those are questions we do need to be addressing, and soon. How are we going to absorb these people and care for them, and get their children educations? I mean, it's not enough just to get them out of the city of N.O. they have to find a way to resume their lives, and I feel pretty confident many of them will just plan on doing it where they are and staying there.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:No it won't be exactly the same. But it's the people that make a city a city, more so than the buildings.
Maybe France would be willing to help with the architecture of rebuilding the old French Quarter.
Actually, the French Quarter is largely intact, because it sits roughly 5 feet above sea level and has a better pump system.
Downtown, near the dome, will need a lot of rebuilding, as will St. Louis Cathedral/French Market Area.
That, for most people, will complete the rebuilding. New Orleans will be restored as it was. The real problem is the poor sections of town. They are the low lying areas, and because they have less opportunity to grease the wheels of government, their pumps/levees are the worst. We need to rebuild the levee system from scratch over the next 5 years or so, so it can withstand a Cat 5 hurricane. We need to update the pump system and the individual pumps with the biggest, baddest pumps around. And then, hope that we never need them.
Abandoning the city is a ridiculous suggestion. Plenty of cities exist below sea level, and New Orleans has too much history, culture, and commerce to be abandoned.
EDIT: I agree with Belle. Probably a lot of residents won't want to go back, either out of fear or simply not having anything to go back to.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: rivka, here's another question:
If the whole city is reliant on levees, who get the first aliyah?
*GROAN* >_<
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We should look to the Netherlands. They built giant hydraulic walls to keep water out of their country, 50% of which is below sea level. If they can protect their entire country, we can protect a single city.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
You can't rebuild history. Two years ago I was dragged kicking and screaming into Louisiana. I hated the education system, the small-towns, the alcohol problems...etc. But during my trips to New Orleans, I've fallen in love with the city in the middle of all the madness. My childhood home is underwater and my current home has a Katrina-granted skylight.
If we're going to stop rebuilding in disaster areas, then Floria and California can be the next to be abandoned.
Florida gets hit every year. New Orleans gets its worst hit in 150 years and people want to wipe it off the map.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Quite.
It's almost laughable to say that rebuilding NOLA is unreasonable. We rebuild San Francisco, we rebuild Florida seemingly every year. We rebuild the flood plains of of the mid west, we rebuild in tornado alley, we rebuilt after St. Helens, Hawaii continues to build ONTO THE SIDES OF ACTIVE VOLCANOES, and yet out of all that potential for destruction, the one city that is being brougt into question is the one with the smallest number of catastrophic disasters.
Ridiculous.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It is not ridiculous to ask every relevant question before spending billions of dollars.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Most of the billions of dollars are not optional, though, and most of the people receiving them will move back into NO.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it is incredibly ridiculous. Asking HOW to rebuild it is certainly relevant, and should be considered from every single angle. But IF, asking IF we should rebuild is insulting to the citizens of New Orleans.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
IF it isn't rebuilt correctly, it will cease to be an insult when the city is destroyed again, by another hurricane.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My comments were referring to the question of if it would be rebuilt at all, not how it would be rebuilt.
The question of "if" is ridiculous.
The question of "how" is an open book, and I recommend we read every page of it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Right, because it has been destroyed so often by hurricanes in it's 300+ year history. At least pretend to be reasonable. I'm happy to consider not rebuilding it, but I'm still waiting for someone to put forth a reasonable alternative.
Until I hear that, I don't see any reason to consider "if".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Asking if is not insulting.
Let's face, there are some disaster scenarios where it would be the right decision not to rebuild. And when the expenditure is going to be this big, then the question should at least be asked.
As for the 300 year history, there are a combination of factors that make it more dangerous there each year: eroding wetlands, subsidence caused by the pumps in the city, possible worsening weather patterns.
I think it should be rebuilt. But I hate the idea that we can't even consider not doing so.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I won't consider it, because considering it means giving up.
And I do think it is insulting. For all the reasons I listed above, that we've never batted an eyelash before at rebuilding areas that are 10 times more accident prone than New Orleans. That we continue to build in accident prone areas, and that we have forecasted disasters in areas we spend billions of dollars developing.
Mount St. Helens will erupt again, probably in the next hundred years, but we've built around it. Experts predict the San Andreas fault will cause a devastating earthquake any time now, it's long overdue, but we California is the most populous state in the union. I could go on, and on about tsunamis hitting the Atlantic seaboard, hurricanes devastating Florida, tornadoes, earthquakes, drought, so on and so forth. But we continue to build in those areas, and we've ALWAYS rebuilt them when they've been knocked down.
The citizens of New Orleans have been paying taxes all this time into the funds that go to clean those places up, and that will clean them up in the future. And in their hour of need, where thousands have drowned, or starved, or been shot, or in a dozen other ways have met a wretched fate, we have sent them aid, perhaps too late. And when that is over, many will want to go home, and they will want to see their city rebuilt, like hundreds of others have been in this country over the last two centuries.
So yes, to think of not rebuilding is insulting, that after everything they have been through, which I think would rate up there with the worst psychological torture ever inflicted on a city at large, that at the end of all that we'd say "Sorry, we don't think that YOU are worth it, you are the exception to the rule, but please, give generously next time a Hurricane hits Miami."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I won't consider it, because considering it means giving up.
No, considering it means considering it.
quote:And I do think it is insulting. For all the reasons I listed above, that we've never batted an eyelash before at rebuilding areas that are 10 times more accident prone than New Orleans. That we continue to build in accident prone areas, and that we have forecasted disasters in areas we spend billions of dollars developing.
Mount St. Helens will erupt again, probably in the next hundred years, but we've built around it. Experts predict the San Andreas fault will cause a devastating earthquake any time now, it's long overdue, but we California is the most populous state in the union. I could go on, and on about tsunamis hitting the Atlantic seaboard, hurricanes devastating Florida, tornadoes, earthquakes, drought, so on and so forth. But we continue to build in those areas, and we've ALWAYS rebuilt them when they've been knocked down.
And maybe we need to consider some of those, too.
quote:"Sorry, we don't think that YOU are worth it, you are the exception to the rule, but please, give generously next time a Hurricane hits Miami."
Where did I say we shouldn't rebuild?
You know, for all your complaints about not wanting it considered, you've actually done a whole lot of considering. Which is a good thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
::prepares to argue angrily::
Ehhh...
You're right.
You certainly know how to take the wind out of someone's sails.
I shall shift my argument away from "ifs" and considerations. And I'll save my long winded high and mighty speeches for people who actually disagree with me. Guess I got a little carried away.
Posted by KEGE (Member # 424) on :
Lyrhawn - you are right. It is an insult to consider the "if" and whoever brought it up in the first place should have to go through the experience of the citizens of New Orleans and then have someone else pose the "if" question.
And I'm not just talking about whoever posted this topic, but all politians, media, etc. who asked the IF question.
It never, never should have been "should we rebuild New Orleans" but always and only "how do we rebuild New Orleans BETTER" - NO place is ever completely safe from natural or man made disasters.
IF we abandoned every place on Earth after a disaster then MOST places wouldn't be here today. I'm thinking Rome burning down, Paris burning down, London burning down. I'm thinking all the places in Europe destroyed during WWI and WWII. I'm thinking Pearl Harbor, I'm thinking the first White House destroyed. I'm thinking of Chicago burning down, Atlanta burning down. I'm thinking of the Pentagon and NYC terrorist attacks. I'm thinking of every place in Florida hit by hurricanes. I'm thinking of San Francisco being knocked down by earthquakes over and over and over.
I don't know where all the population of the world would live if we just moved on and started over each time. In outer space?
Most of the OLD CONSTRUCTION in New Orleans is FINE. My uncle stayed in Uptown and drove out Wednesday night to Baton Rouge. His OLD house is FINE. The French Quarter is fine. The old Causeway bridge is fine but the newer twin spans are toast. Obviously this begs a whole new topic but still....
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Of course New Orleans should be rebuilt for the same reasons it was built in the 1st place - it's an incredibly important port city. How much of American commerce depends on being able to efficiently move goods through the New Orleans port and up the Mississippi River? I would reckon it's a lot. Barge traffic is cheap, you can't move something by rail or truck as cheaply as you can float it. Can you replace the artery that is the Mississippi? And what is the most important port city on the MS? New Orleans.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Most of the OLD CONSTRUCTION in New Orleans is FINE. My uncle stayed in Uptown and drove out Wednesday night to Baton Rouge. His OLD house is FINE. The French Quarter is fine. The old Causeway bridge is fine but the newer twin spans are toast. Obviously this begs a whole new topic but still....
I was wondering if this was true. I've been looking at pictures and it does appear that the really modern buildings have survived and the old buildings look to be intact. I thought it seemed like the mid-range stuff (built in the 70's maybe a bit before) took the worst hits.
Not sure about transportation infrastructure in comparison to the buildings in town. There's a much different issue with things like bridges. Even if they look fine, they may have been subjected to stresses that exceed their design and only after some review will they be deemed safe (or unsafe). Of course some stuff was just washed away.
Anyway, the pics show NO as not completely flooded and the buildings as mostly standing.
It may not need rebuilding so much as some serious structural testing and renovation.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I think that if people move back, it will be rebuilt.
If they don't, it won't.
It's good for us to consider, I suppose, but unless we're residents, it isn't our decision.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Yes, the French Quarter is fine. There were people who actually rode out Katrina from their business establishments. There are also amazingly fast pumps in the area so that water can be cleared away to limit damage (wish as much could be said for the residential parts of town.) They have reporters walking up and down Canal without any problems. The Square and all the famous buildings are intact.
With so many residents displaced, most are eager to return to their normal lives. Staying in a shelter for atleast 3 months doesn't sound appealing so many have already said they won't be returning. Instead they'll find a new city and start rebuilding their lives.
I don't doubt that it'll be rebuilt. Its too important for the Louisiana economy. But it will be shadows of its former self.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yeah, the French quarter did survive because it's one area of the city that is actually above sea level. That's good for the tourist trade, it means they can get back up and running faster.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
There's nothing wrong with asking questions. One relevant question is: do we really want this to happen again? Because it certainly will. There will be category-4 hurricanes in the future.
Maybe the answer is "yes" -- maybe preserving the city and its port is worth having some 10K people die from flooding every 50 years or so -- but it's not awful to ask. And it's a little strange to claim that trying to save the lives of N.O. residents is an insult to N.O. residents.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes but that specific question isn't one that needs to be asked.
We can engineer our way out of this problem. It doesn't have to have a human cost.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Does anyone know about toxins and disease problems, though? It sounds like the area is going to continue to be ripe with cholera, typhoid, and other diseases for a while longer.
It doesn't sound like a simple problem of rebuilding some buildings and infrastructure. It sounds more like an enormous clean up and decontamination project.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
After they drain the sewage water out and treat it, the situation won't be so bad. Certainly it isn't going away anytime soon, but draining out the water, which has to be done anyway, will get rid of a lot of that. The standing sewage water is what is spreading mosquitos en masse, that's a large part of the problem.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
The sewage water is only 1/2 the problem. The toxic sludge that will reamins will be a danger for a while.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Toxic sludge? I hadn't heard about that. Where did it come from?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
They say the hurricanes in the Gulf are expected to get worse over the next 20-30 years. Rebuilding New Orleans where it is would be pointless, unless it's protected in a way that probably hasn't even been invented yet.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's been invented. It's called THE NETHERLANDS!
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The Netherlands doesn't suffer hurricanes. And a good thing, too.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
As for the diseases, see the thread I started about dysentery and cholera. Mississippi officials have been evacuating shelters due to suspected outbreaks of these diseases, so yeah, it's going to be a big problem.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
There is good technology out there for water purification (e.g., UV Waterworks). I hope it is getting there.
Even chlorine bleach in certain doses can be used to disinfect water and keep it potable, for the most part.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
New Orleans has to be rebuilt.
All of the "clapboard" houses from the dust bowl era need to be cleared out and replaced (if they haven't already by the storm).
That's another observation about New Orleans that is at least different than the cities I have grown up around.
In New Orleans they do NOT ever tear things down and build over them. The city is like the large trunk of a tree with a ring for each epoch of growth and building.
It's why the FRENCH QUARTER is clear to the west and the DOWNTOWN New Orleans is way to he east.
The cities I grew up in when things get run down, they get condemned and torn down and then new buildings/homes built in there place.
In NO that doesn't happen. The clapboard homes built in the dustbowl era? They were still there and had people living in them. The lyrical "home where you could see the lights from inside through the craks in the boards"? That's reality in New Orleans alot.
The "If it ain't broke don't fix it" mentallity is very much alive there and unless it's falling down on your head, it ain't broke.
I visited a Self Storage facility in Metairie off of Causeway BLVD for a company called SAFEGUARD. It was an office building built in the late 60's early 70's that was bought very cheaply because it was very run down, they then gutted all of the floors but the top and converted it to storage instead of tear it down and build anew. EXCEPT the top floor that they didn't convert due to access. It still has the 70's shag carpet and orange and crome office furniture in it.
I take that back, there is SOME new construction, but not in homes and not in the "middle" areas of Metairie where the flooding is. Certainly not in the poorest areas.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Should New Orleans be rebuilt?
I vote "yes". That the question could be seriously considered is shocking. I am horrified at the news reports coming from there. It will take a lot of time and a huge amount of effort.
Building a city is one thing. But building in that same place? I'm not so sure it's a good idea.
And would Kohanim be allowed to enter such a city? Serious question.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: If you lived in an under water bubble, would you need an eruv? If you can't see the sky, how do you know when to daaven? If you live in a bubble, can you grow a garden? What if it were hydoponic? Do you still say "ha'adomah"?
Well... do you say ha-adamah on Alei Katif?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The Netherlands probably knows more about engineering levees and other ways to protect land from the sea than any other western industrialized nation on the planet.
Which was my apparently missed point.
And how do you move a city? Everyone who used to live there before gets an equal sized portion of land? How do you decide who gets what? Where do you put it? What do you do with the French quarter and high rises that are still intact?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think it's pretty apparent where I stand on this, but I believe in making informed decisions, so I offer this as evidence against rebuilding (from Slate).
quote:The city's romance is not the reality for most who live there. It's a poor place, with about 27 percent of the population of 484,000 living under the poverty line, and it's a black place, where 67 percent are African-American. In 65 percent of families living in poverty, no husband is present. When you overlap this New York Times map, which illustrates how the hurricane's floodwaters inundated 80 percent of the city, with this demographic map from the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center, which shows where the black population lives, and this one that shows where the poverty cases live, it's transparent whom Katrina hit the hardest.
New Orleans' public schools, which are 93 percent black, have failed their citizens. The state of Louisiana rates 47 percent of New Orleans schools as "Academically Unacceptable" and another 26 percent are under "Academic Warning." About 25 percent of adults have no high-school diploma.
The police inspire so little trust that witnesses often refuse to testify in court. University researchers enlisted the police in an experiment last year, having them fire 700 blank gun rounds in a New Orleans neighborhood one afternoon. Nobody picked up the phone to report the shootings. Little wonder the city's homicide rate stands at 10 times the national average.
This city counts 188,000 occupied dwellings, with about half occupied by renters and half by owners. The housing stock is much older than the national average, with 43 percent built in 1949 or earlier (compared with 22 percent for the United States) and only 11 percent of them built since 1980 (compared with 35 for the United States). As we've observed, many of the flooded homes are modest to Spartan to ramshackle and will have to be demolished if toxic mold or fire don't take them first.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I have never been to New Orleans, so I have no mental picture of how it is laid out..but..
what about if they just put the residential part of the city further inland (or is it already surrounded by suburbs?) And make the city itself mostly the seaport and businesses.
They have a chance here to almost rebuild from scratch and have a designed city --- much like Washington D.C. was designed before construction began...
FG
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
The leaning tower is falling...
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: The leaning tower is falling...
Not so much really.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Washington DC does not look like it's original design at all except on those lovely tourist maps. It never did. The original designer wanted the entire city to be a diamond intersected by a circle with the white house at the top of the circle. It is. Unfortunately you can never see it that way because the government went "Hey what if the British come back!" and did the equivelant of having a small child take a crayon and make a picture to divide up the streets. There is no decent parking, it is difficult to travel in Washington DC unless you take the metro. With the new security measures in place from 9/11 it is even worse than it used to be. Thousands of people live in neighborhoods which are not safe. Washington DC is not a state, and does not have voting representation in Congress or the Senate. There has been talk for years of having the city reabsorbed back into the two states that originally donated the land for the independent city, Virginia and Maryland. The economic and social problems of dealing with the city are such that neither state is willing to even consider absorbing the city into their borders.
Washington DC may not have been the best example.
I know, I'm a former citizen of that area. It's a big pain.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Oh well -- shows how little I know. I just believe everything they tell us on the Capitol tour....
FG
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
With New Orleans, there really isn't any more "inland". It's pretty much an island, with the Mississippi on 3 sides (hence the name Crescent City) and the lake on the fourth.
The only real direction they could go is up. Skyscrapers. But since Corporations have been leaving more than coming, I doubt if that will happen. I imagine that when it gets to the rebuilding point, there'll be a lot more room. Of the 490,000 residents, I wouldn't be surprised if 50-100,000 don't come back. That's just metro New Orleans, not greater New Orleans (including Metarie, Kenner, Gretna, and all that business).
Here's a map of New Orleans for those that don't know what it looks like.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) Gardens shouldn't be a problem. And whether it were grown using hydroponics or not, the bracha would be ha'adomah.