Rebuild New Orleans - Yes or No?

Rebuild New Orleans - Yes or No?

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 23.6%
  • No

    Votes: 74 67.3%
  • Don't know/Other

    Votes: 10 9.1%

  • Total voters
    110
Should they rebuild the houses where they are now? No.


Build them 50 miles to the north? Sure. Rebuild the oil facilities and other industry only. Everything else goes far far away. ]

The town was doomed years ago.
 
Once all the toxins in the water are neutralized, Lake New Orleans might be a good place to go sport fishing or alligator hunting.

At the mouth of the Mississippi, we need the Port facilities.

Having said that, as an architect, I find the challenge of rebuilding a city that lies below mean sea level and is surrounded by swamps, lakes and the Mississippi to be so expensive, I doubt the economic return would be available in my lifetime or even my children's lifetime. But when & if enough captialists who need the 6th largest port in the world (can that be right, or is it the 6th largest in the US?) feel they must have it, it will be done.

A city built on stilts... Elevated Infrastructure... Future Hurricanes vs. Port Facility for 18% - 23% of America's energy, billions of dollars in import/export revenue

It will probably be rebuilt, not raised on stilts, little to no elevated infrastructure. We need the port facilities too much.
http://www.portno.com/default.asp
Maybe in happier days ahead, they'll get back on their website.
In the meantime, vast resupply will come in through said port, once it is cleared up and running
 
While N.O. has its problems, and they are major, one would have to be totally ignorant to not recognize the economic importance of that city's port system as it is both a sea (Gulf) and river (Mississippi) port city.

To suggest it is not worth saving/rebuilding, with needed upgrades/revisions, is a totally uninformed opinion.

The Big Easy has always had its warts...and its charm. It certainly will always have its significance to this nation's economy.

From the Port of New Orleans (the world's BUSIEST waterway):

Ideally located at the mouth of Mississippi River, the Port of New Orleans is America’s gateway to the global market. New Orleans has been a center for international trade since 1718 when it when it was founded by the French.

Today, the Port of New Orleans is at the center of the world’s busiest port complex — Louisiana’s Lower Mississippi River. Its proximity to the American Midwest via a 14,500-mile inland waterway system makes New Orleans the port of choice for the movement of cargoes such as steel, grain, containers and manufactured goods.

The Port of New Orleans is the only deepwater port in the United States served by six class one railroads. This gives port users direct and economical rail service to or from anywhere in the country.

New Orleans is one of America’s leading general cargo ports. A productive and efficient private maritime industry has help produce impressive results, including the USA’s top market share for import steel, natural rubber, plywood and coffee.

http://www.portno.com/facts.htm
 
Where have I asked for an emotional anything?Why is it always assumed that only the poster is thinking rationally just because I disagree with your economic assessment.
And there's the whole sentiment thing again
You seem distressed by the use of "emotion" and "sentiment" so just substitute "non-economic" for those words in my previous posts.

If it makes economic sense to rebuild NOLA, or any other devasted area, then by all means do so. If it does not make economic sense, then what would the motivation be for rebuilding?

The fact is that NO is an economically viable city who contributes as much or more as any other city in America.
NOLA was an economically viable city, which may or not be so in the future. At the moment, a substantial part of NOLA is submerged rubble.
 
About 30 years ago Darwin in Northern Australia was flattened by a Cyclone. It has been rebuilt with stronger structures.

I presume houses could be made Hurricane proof or at least resistant? and that levies could be built higher and stronger?
 
You seem distressed by the use of "emotion" and "sentiment"
Words mean things, intent means more.
Would you not take exception if I called your argument the macho he-man approach instead of the economic approach
 
I'm going to miss New Orleans more than any other city that this could have happened to. I hope they rebuild it. I loved every single thing about that city, the music, culture, food, people, everything. I pray that one day it would be just like it used to be, without the poverty.

Of course, that will be money out of our pockets.
 
Yes, the structures can be built. But in reality it would be better if that whole area was bulldozed and flooded to relocate the port. One more things: STOP PEOPLE FROM BUILDING CONDOS ON A FRICKEN ISTHMUS! Geeze that place was a wreck to begin with.
 
I have spent much enjoyable time in NOLA. The French Quarter, the Riverwalk, Canal Street, Bourbon Street, and the Garden District were marvelous. However, many of the surrounding areas were squalid slums and were nearly battle zones before the hurricane.

NOLA will undoubtedly be rebuilt, but I have little confidence that it will done in a way that promises substantially greater future safety for the city's residents.
 
Geez :rolleyes: ,

Let's look at another country, Holland or the Netherlands to be exact. They are under sea level and have in fact built, and maintained, dikes (no, not that kind of dike okay, no humor needed here).

They have been a country for how many years? Well, they were present in many pages of history that one wishes to revisit.

Levies are one thing, dikes are another. If you noticed on the coverage, one area was under water and the other side, wasn't. They had built what is called earthern dikes, the other wasn't as fortified.

One side is under water, the other side, isn't.

The city can be rebuilt, but let's look at earthern dikes instead of steel levies.

Wayne

Oh, been to Holland, been to N.O.
 
Would you not take exception if I called your argument the macho he-man approach instead of the economic approach
:D Absolutely not! Machismo sounds much cooler than cold financial calculation.
 
New Orleans should never have been built in the first place...you don't see any neighborhoods going up on top of volcanos, do you?
 
We rebuild. We're Americans, and the weather doesn't chase us away or make us give up.

We'll just build better and be ready for the next category 4/5 that comes.

Too bad we didn't spend a few billion in the last few years working over those levees and buildling better pumping systems.
 
Holland and NO, aside from both being below sea level, have very little in common. In Holland, things are built to withstand 10,000 year floods, in the US it is usualy 100 years. Holland has a series of defences to allow certian areas to flood to save the rest of the country. NO has no such planing.

The 100 year flood really came to bit us here in GF in the *ss in 97. We had houses built right up to the river and dikes protecting them. The river was confined to a little thread running through town. The flow increased, pressure increased, until the river finaly rose over and broke the dikes. After the flood we demolished hundreds of homes and moved the dikes much farther away from the river. Entire neighborhoods in the low lying areas where writen off and given back to nature. It was simply not possible to keep the river contained in it's little stream during flooding. We had to, and did, give it more room.

You can drive through that area now and there are no houses, no people, no kids, no lawns, nothing but grass. Just empty ground that still shows the outlines where houses once stood. It is a ghost town, a Chernobyl of sorts, where nobody will ever be able to live again. Beyond the dikes, next to the river, is a wasteland of flowers, grass, and trees. Having lived through the flood, I can go through there and still see the houses that once stood there and the families that lived there. Yes it is depressing, but it had to be done. We realised that we are not the masters of the river, we cannot contain it to it's own banks. If it wants to, it will escape it's banks and destroy whatever it can. So we gave it room to breath and hope that we will never again have to suffer it's furry.

/Sorry, this whole disaster brings back some unpleasant memories from 97. :(
//He who fails to learn from history is doomed to repeat it. Don't let them repeat by rebuilding NO as it is.
 
Issue: Hydrology problems due to good ol' American Stupidity I

Well - as far as building on the beach - I am against that also. But the problems in New Orleans go a lot deeper than the beach, and just judging by the architecture, I'll wager that city has been there for 150 years or more.

For a remarkably prescient article on the prospect of a hurricane hitting New Orleans, see National Geographic's article on Lousiana Wetlands, published October, 2004:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/

It begins:
It was a broiling August afternoon in New Orleans, Louisiana, the Big Easy, the City That Care Forgot. Those who ventured outside moved as if they were swimming in tupelo honey. Those inside paid silent homage to the man who invented air-conditioning as they watched TV "storm teams" warn of a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. Nothing surprising there: Hurricanes in August are as much a part of life in this town as hangovers on Ash Wednesday.

But the next day the storm gathered steam and drew a bead on the city. As the whirling maelstrom approached the coast, more than a million people evacuated to higher ground. Some 200,000 remained, however—the car-less, the homeless, the aged and infirm, and those die-hard New Orleanians who look for any excuse to throw a party.

The storm hit Breton Sound with the fury of a nuclear warhead, pushing a deadly storm surge into Lake Pontchartrain. The water crept to the top of the massive berm that holds back the lake and then spilled over. Nearly 80 percent of New Orleans lies below sea level—more than eight feet below in places—so the water poured in. A liquid brown wall washed over the brick ranch homes of Gentilly, over the clapboard houses of the Ninth Ward, over the white-columned porches of the Garden District, until it raced through the bars and strip joints on Bourbon Street like the pale rider of the Apocalypse. As it reached 25 feet (eight meters) over parts of the city, people climbed onto roofs to escape it.

Thousands drowned in the murky brew that was soon contaminated by sewage and industrial waste. Thousands more who survived the flood later perished from dehydration and disease as they waited to be rescued. It took two months to pump the city dry, and by then the Big Easy was buried under a blanket of putrid sediment, a million people were homeless, and 50,000 were dead. It was the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States.

When did this calamity happen? It hasn't—yet. But the doomsday scenario is not far-fetched. The Federal Emergency Management Agency lists a hurricane strike on New Orleans as one of the most dire threats to the nation, up there with a large earthquake in California or a terrorist attack on New York City. Even the Red Cross no longer opens hurricane shelters in the city, claiming the risk to its workers is too great.

"The killer for Louisiana is a Category Three storm at 72 hours before landfall that becomes a Category Four at 48 hours and a Category Five at 24 hours—coming from the worst direction," says Joe Suhayda, a retired coastal engineer at Louisiana State University who has spent 30 years studying the coast. Suhayda is sitting in a lakefront restaurant on an actual August afternoon sipping lemonade and talking about the chinks in the city's hurricane armor. "I don't think people realize how precarious we are,"
Suhayda says, watching sailboats glide by. "Our technology is great when it works. But when it fails, it's going to make things much worse."

The chances of such a storm hitting New Orleans in any given year are slight, but the danger is growing. Climatologists predict that powerful storms may occur more frequently this century, while rising sea level from global warming is putting low-lying coasts at greater risk. "It's not if it will happen," says University of New Orleans geologist Shea Penland. "It's when."

Yet just as the risks of a killer storm are rising, the city's natural defenses are quietly melting away. From the Mississippi border to the Texas state line, Louisiana is losing its protective fringe of marshes and barrier islands faster than any place in the U.S. Since the 1930s some 1,900 square miles (4,900 square kilometers) of coastal wetlands—a swath nearly the size of Delaware or almost twice that of Luxembourg—have vanished beneath the Gulf of Mexico. Despite nearly half a billion dollars spent over the past decade to stem the tide, the state continues to lose about 25 square miles (65 square kilometers) of land each year, roughly one acre every 33 minutes.
 
Last edited:
No time to read the responses above mine, but I answered NO, and I've been raising this question with friends and acquaintances for the last few days.

Rebuilding a city that never should have been where it was to begin with, only so that another storm down the road can cost another $25,000,000,000 to fix up, is INSANITY.

Sorry, but this was nature's way of saying we were stupid to have so much invested there in the first place. Let's move on. Given enough time, things will be back to normal -- a different, strange-seeming normal, for a while -- but normal nonetheless. People move to and resettle in different parts of the country all the time. This will just be for a different reason, is all.

WE should not have to pay, and continue to pay in the future over and over, when stupidity causes people to build where they are in harm's way.

-blackmind
 
Issue: Hydrology problems due to good ol' American Stupidity II

So... the land is receding quickly in that part of the country, despite some modern band-aid efforts to fix the problem. It's not cyclically doing anything, just going away. So how did that happen? It's not a natural cycle, and in fact, the problem arises from American engineering in the area to manipulate the flow of water, which has been going on for more than a century.

The following draws heavily on an article in July 2004 Civil Engineering Magazine:
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline04/0704feat.html

For nearly a century, the Mississippi River Delta has been shrinking at a catastrophic rate. Civil engineers will play a major role in the multidisciplinary effort needed to reverse the damage.

Coastal Louisiana is one of the world's most significant wetland areas. It has lost over 900,000 acres [365,000 ha] since the 1930s. As recently as the 1970s, the loss rate for Louisiana's coastal wetlands was as high as 25,600 acres [10,400 ha] per year. The current rate of loss is about 16,000 acres [6,500 ha] per year. It is estimated that coastal Louisiana will experience a[n additional] 320,000 acre [130,000 ha] net loss by the year 2050.

Although the problem has been developing for decades, neither the state nor the federal government has been able to develop and build projects of the scope that would make a difference. However, with coastal land disappearing at the rate of 2 acres (0.8 ha) an hour, the scope and urgency of the engineering challenge become clearer every day. A century of engineering in the Mississippi basin to prevent floods and aid navigation has created the present situation. Only reengineering the Mississippi can restore a balance that will stop the land loss and enable coastal Louisiana to become stable and self-sustaining.

It has been estimated that human activity, directly or indirectly, has caused approximately 70 percent of the land losses in the delta. Whether this number is accurate or not, human activity has clearly been a significant factor in coastal Louisiana land losses, along with subsidence, saltwater intrusion, storm events, barrier island degradation, and relative sea level changes.

Among their many achievements in the latter part of the 19th century and the 20th century, engineers were perhaps proudest of the taming of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers and the development of the watersheds for purposes of navigation, flood control, and agriculture. Most engineers are familiar with the dams on the Missouri, the locks and dams on the upper Mississippi, and the extensive levee systems on the lower Mississippi. The achievement of James Buchanan Eads in opening the South Pass of the Mississippi River in 1880 to make New Orleans and St. Louis more accessible to trade was a monumental engineering accomplishment. However, the unintended cumulative effect of more than a century of civil engineering success has been to reduce the overall sediment load carried by the entire watershed by 67 percent. A well-engineered, hydraulically efficient flow carries that reduced load far out into the Gulf of Mexico and ensures that very little of it will be deposited in the marshes along the coast that it had nurtured for centuries.

In plain English, the original situation was that the delta was there as a result of an equilibrium between:
Forces adding soil: the mighty Mississippi, bringing sediments gathered from an enormous drainage basin occupying a broad swath through the midwest from the Gulf of Mexico to Minnesota.
Forces removing soil: wind and water erosion, coupled with sediment compaction due to gravity

All was well until some brilliant minds decided that the mild seasonal floods were inconvenient, and it'd be a lot easier to run boats if the curvy bits were straighter...etc... without really thinking about how that Delta got there in the first place. :rolleyes: So they removed 2/3 of the sediment input, and made the water flow such that what was left was deposited far out into the Gulf, instead of at the Delta. Today, we have land dissappearing there at 2 acres per hour under water. :eek:
ft_hdr.5.jpg


So now, they have the notion of "reengineering" the river to try to undo what's been done. Hope they succeed. Personally, I do hope they rebuild New Orleans - sure, it has problems with crime, but it's a great city with a unique culture. There is nothing else like it in the US. I just hope that they also address the root causes of the problem - which is the hydrology screwup and fix it so that things can move forward, instead of downward down there.
 
Well,
Despite (or maybe because) living in the Netherlands I'm one of those people saying that rebuilding New Orleans as-is is madness and shouldn't be attempted. Rebuilding an already flooded coastal city, below sea level, in a confined space and with a heavily canalized major river going through it simply isn't sane.

The question is, sentimentality aside, what New Orleans companies need to be in their current locations and which can be rebuilt elsewhere (albeit probably at great expense). For instance, NASA builds the Space Shuttle external tanks in Michoud. While the facility wasn't destroyed (something which would have likely killed the shuttle program), it doesn't strictly need to be in Michoud. Going down that path and organising the results by economic sector, you'll probably end up with a fairly short list of activities. Port activities, oil import/transport and oil refining are probably the big items. Of those, even the port (and related transportation activities) might be moveable (most likely to Baton Rouge, though a ship canal to Atchafalaya bay would probably be needed). The resulting town would probably be one tenth its current size in terms of population.

One other aspect of rebuilding New Orleans is time. Unless the city is cleaned up really quickly, and I'm speaking of weeks not months, the question will likely become moot. A lot of currently evacuated, homeless and impoverished people will probably start rebuilding their lives elsewhere. Similarly a lot of business will be going to competitors elsewhere. New Orleans businesses will probably find in many cases that getting their business and their employees back to be nearly impossible. The major exception will be work where the location really is critical.

Update
The last paragraph is already happening, with respects to college students (remember, schools are starting).

Cheers,
ErikM :D
 
Last edited:
Back
Top