Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Water Flowing over New Orleans Levee
- Thread starter Whyren
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good point about the oldest parts of the city being about sea level. But, I'm going to go out on a limb and side with the folks in favor of not reconstructing NO in the same place. Taking the emotions out of it for a moment, doesn't it seem a little absurd that the American taxpayer should be forced to pay to rebuild something that's destined to flood again? If anything, I would think that people who CHOOSE to live there and/or residents of Louisiana should pay for it. Of course, this would get me on my rant about getting the federal government out of the business of state and local governance, but that's another thread entirely.
Also, I live in Northern California -- earthquake country. I know that someday the "big one" will hit (thought it was here in '89) and there will be a Katrina-quality disaster. HOWEVER, I don't expect the Feds or Americans from Minnesota to bail my a** out. That's the job of us here in NorCal and California in general. Perhaps I'm just a heartless SOB, but while I feel for the folks that lost their homes due to flooding, I don't like the fact that all Americans are paying to rebuild it.
I mean, ya live below sea level --- duh. Providing assistance to relocate in a different area -- that's a different story and I would be willing to pay for that kind of activity.
Also, I live in Northern California -- earthquake country. I know that someday the "big one" will hit (thought it was here in '89) and there will be a Katrina-quality disaster. HOWEVER, I don't expect the Feds or Americans from Minnesota to bail my a** out. That's the job of us here in NorCal and California in general. Perhaps I'm just a heartless SOB, but while I feel for the folks that lost their homes due to flooding, I don't like the fact that all Americans are paying to rebuild it.
I mean, ya live below sea level --- duh. Providing assistance to relocate in a different area -- that's a different story and I would be willing to pay for that kind of activity.
For all you people who are giving the "who cares" response to the "New Orleans has a history" argument. I hope no one ever decides they don't care about wherever you live. Think about it.
Alexandria was a great city with a great library, lost to floods. Here we are today, no better or no worse off, right? Why not say that about New York, or L.A., or anywhere? Why give a f*** about any place? Just let it all rot to hell. There'll still be people around 3000 years from now and they won't give a damn, right?
Alexandria was a great city with a great library, lost to floods. Here we are today, no better or no worse off, right? Why not say that about New York, or L.A., or anywhere? Why give a f*** about any place? Just let it all rot to hell. There'll still be people around 3000 years from now and they won't give a damn, right?
wordmunger said:
Exactly! I know you don't mean it in a positive light, but from a evolutionary perspective, this does nothing to hamper the human as a species. We're still around, we'll still function fine. So maybe a few 100 college students won't be able to go to New Orleans and show their breasts for beads... we'll still survive with that cultural loss. Really that would be the only thing that will be lost. The people of New Orleans will disperse, thus spreading their culture and heritage, in the same way that the French and Spanish originally spread their culture and heritage to New Orleans. It won't be lost... maybe over time it will be forgotten, but then it will be rediscovered and venerated.
wrc fan said:
I like breasts. A lot. Those displaced flashers are more than welcome to migrate to San Jose during Mardi Gras this year.
I agree with clayj. They should not try to rebuild New Orleans right where it was. However, that does not mean a total relocation and abandonment of the historic district. You could just SHIFT the city and move the 80% that is below sea level farther inland or higher up, say, maybe the other side of the historic district. Just move the city a few miles inland, that way it is in a better location, still has its heritage and has that nice flood plain buffer where parts of it used to be.
But apparently if you move a city it has to be a few hundred miles.
But apparently if you move a city it has to be a few hundred miles
.
yippy said:I agree with clayj. They should not try to rebuild New Orleans right where it was. However, that does not mean a total relocation and abandonment of the historic district. You could just SHIFT the city and move the 80% that is below sea level farther inland or higher up, say, maybe the other side of the historic district. Just move the city a few miles inland, that way it is in a better location, still has its heritage and has that nice flood plain buffer where parts of it used to be.
But apparently if you move a city it has to be a few hundred miles
Now, see? That I could live with. But I don't think that's what Clay is saying.
Many of you are ignoring (or forgetting) the fact that New Orleans is only vulnerable because our levee system sucks - it could easily be built up to the extent that a hurricane even worse than Katrina would fail to flood the city.
New Orleans is not doomed to suffer flooding like this, unless we let it.
And as to people being unwilling to pay into the pot...um...well...it's kinda how our entire country works financially. If every city/town/household was on its own we wouldn't have the infrastructure we have. We need the whole country to subsidize relief.
Did you guys diapprove of helping the tsunami victims? They all live in vulnerable spots too.
The city of Ur, LOL.
we should ALWAYS attempt to preserve historically significant places. Always. It is irrisponsible to allow history to be destroyed just because saving/preserving them might be inconvenient.
New Orleans is not doomed to suffer flooding like this, unless we let it.
And as to people being unwilling to pay into the pot...um...well...it's kinda how our entire country works financially. If every city/town/household was on its own we wouldn't have the infrastructure we have. We need the whole country to subsidize relief.
Did you guys diapprove of helping the tsunami victims? They all live in vulnerable spots too.
The city of Ur, LOL.
we should ALWAYS attempt to preserve historically significant places. Always. It is irrisponsible to allow history to be destroyed just because saving/preserving them might be inconvenient.
Well, having lived in Oklahoma City among a half a million people, I distinctly remember participating in activities beyond grass watching.wordmunger said:
I personally say we should let mother nature have New Orleans back, but that won't happen. As such, we shouldn't resist the rebuilding because the most that will do is cut funding to the levee project, which means we will back in this same boat after the next major hurricane. NO will be rebuilt no matter what logic says, so the least we can do is build it back right.
The problem with Hartford is that its sandwiched between New York and Boston, Hartford was once known as the Insurance capital of the world and thats what helped keep it afloat. When the factories closed a lot of the people moved to the suburbs and the city kind of fell apart. To say that Hartford was a big thriving city was true maybe back in the 1930's but now its really not that impressive as people would rather live and work in the suburbs. While the city was not destroyed by flood (well it was back in 1955) but its also not buried 20 feet below the Connecticut River either. the water that flooded in also receded on its own.clayj said:
Lord Blackadder said:
Of course, I'm not recommending that we don't. But a thriving living city is not the best way to preserve history. A city is ever changing. For instance, I just recently went to Boston for the weekend. I took a tour around and they have plaques that show a certain building as being the only one remaining from the time period. Is keeping one building from a time period enough? If so then we've got some demoloshing to do in New Orleans. Really, my point it that as a historical site it's fine to do what we can to protect it, but as a megatropolis, or whatever a large city is being called, it is not a wise or safe place for such a large mass of humans to live.
Lord Blackadder said:
"Paying into the pot" is exactly the point of my rant. We can't change it with Katrina, but my point is that there are too many things the federal government has it's fingers in and it shouldn't. Build me good infrastructure for state-to-state commerce/transportation, supply a military, etc. but for everything else, leave it up to the states. Also, I'm concerned about what happens next time. There WILL be another disaster and our government's actions with Katrina is setting a dangerous fiscal precedent.
So, you're saying when California is decimated by earthquakes, you won't mind that your federal government will increase your taxes or go deeper into debt to rebuild cities on a known fault? Personally, I'm not a fan of San Francisco, but I'm sure many could make a case that it's historical significance is similar or greater than that of New Orleans.
New Orleans is below sea level today.
Galveston island was already slowly sinking (or rather, the ocean is slowly rising) even before Katrina.
I'll bet we see tons of cities in America that become below sea level within the next few years. Manhattan comes to mind...
Galveston island was already slowly sinking (or rather, the ocean is slowly rising) even before Katrina.
I'll bet we see tons of cities in America that become below sea level within the next few years. Manhattan comes to mind...
clayj said:
im going to have to agree with clayj on this one they need to move the city somewhere else
having a city below sea level was a terrible idea to begin with, especially when the city is in an are that gets hit by hurricanes
clayj said:
Oh yeah. Let's raze Hartford. Thats' a great idea. You've done a wonderful job of establishing your credibility in my eyes. Maybe I'll raze your hometown, instead.
Um, not to be pertinent or anything, but to what degree was this levee "patched?" Does anyone here know much about levee systems? Are there aletrnatives to levees?
thedude110 said:
The only alternative to a levee is to raise the ground level, usually with fill from elswhere.
anonymous161 said:
I was actually talking about an open plain in Oklahoma, not building a new city where a city already existed. That might be more difficult. But sorry if I offended.
Actually, there don't need to be as many levees as there are now. The breaches all occurred in largely unused canals. They could seal off those canals completely and build a stronger, less extensive levee system.
takao said:
No, not really. The below sea level areas are reclaimed wetlands. They took places that were covered with water, diked them off, and pumped out the water.
thedude110 said:
I fail to see where anybody has said to raze Hartford, nor even New Orleans. All anybody has said is that what is destroyed should not be rebuilt. Personally I'd have no problem if some earthquake comes and destroys Los Angeles and nobody outside of Los Angeles wants to rebuild it. The only worthwhile thing in Los Angeles that will be lost is Tito's Tacos, but I'm sure they can build it in another place. (yeah, yeah, there are some other things in Los Angeles that would be sad to loose, but most of it is a suburban wasteland).
Wow. Can you really not understand that there's a difference between destroying a city (which I have NOT suggested doing) and abandoning a city that nature has already taken out?thedude110 said:
My point is that we should not artificially sustain cities beyond their natural lifespan. In the case of Hartford or Flint, the problem is that the industry which once sustained the city (insurance companies, car companies) has left. If the city remains because its citizens find new industry with which to sustain it, great. If not, it will decay. In the case of New Orleans, Mother Nature clearly has it in for that city, and now that it has become the American equivalent of Chernobyl (substitute a witch's brew of toxic contaminants for radiation), I say it's time we let it go. And as a taxpayer, I am vehemently opposed to bailing out people who didn't have insurance. If I fail to insure my home here in Charlotte and it's destroyed by a natural event, I would not expect a bailout from the government (which then comes out of everyone else's pockets, eventually).
TWO WORDS...
LAND FILL!
I feel Sooooo bad for all the human and material loss - but I do NOT want my tax money rebuilding a city THAT FAR BELOW sea level...
It reminds me of the scene in Monty Pythons Holy Grail...
Swamp castle - sank - we rebuilt it it sank again but the tird time... it burned to the ground and then sank - but the forth one stnads before you here today... (paraphrased not 100% accurate - but close)
Fill it up and rebuild after it hits 20 to 30 feet above sea level!
Seattle did it... I know I've been on the underground tour twice - QUITE amazing.... worth the $11!!!!
LAND FILL!
I feel Sooooo bad for all the human and material loss - but I do NOT want my tax money rebuilding a city THAT FAR BELOW sea level...
It reminds me of the scene in Monty Pythons Holy Grail...
Swamp castle - sank - we rebuilt it it sank again but the tird time... it burned to the ground and then sank - but the forth one stnads before you here today... (paraphrased not 100% accurate - but close)
Fill it up and rebuild after it hits 20 to 30 feet above sea level!
Seattle did it... I know I've been on the underground tour twice - QUITE amazing.... worth the $11!!!!
clayj said:
I agree with the two words... LAND FILL. I am not an engineer but I would guess you can use a lot of the debris and destroyed homes/businesses to fill in the hole. I agree that historic NO needs to be rebuilt and that it is a very vital city and a strong part of our economy.
