"Rebuild" NOLA? Not much easier than rebuilding Atlantis.

Anyone who would propose anything like a 'restoration' is just plain nuts. A small section (the Vieux Carre, obviously and a few other small parcels) might be reclaimable for historical and tourist purposes at some marginally bearable expense which would of course involve new and much more permanent levees, but any attempt to recreate a city of anything like 1M population is nothing but an insane rat dream. And that's all I have to say about that.
:-(

Where do they pump out the water...TO?

At this point?

every other place on the planet. Unfortunately in this case that is UP which automatically makes it ultimately an exercise in futility.

And bring in new pumps to pump this (polluted) water...where?

Seems to me it can and should be done. In fact, this could be an opportunity to to prove to ourselves and the world that we can rebound from disasters. Wouldn't giving up and admitting defeat be more damaging to the national psyche? Recreating a better New Orleans would also be a stimulus to this economy....people are going to need jobs, too.

:shrug:

That's another thing....what to do with all the debris?

If the levees were properly maintained (e.g., the Netherlands) this would have been a lesser tragedy.

Just curious?

That's what some guys from New Orleans told me tonight at a bar in Baton Rouge. Of course they're not quite right--what hasn't happened before is the massive death toll on this scale. But that could have been prevented with a more aggressive evacuation and better levees. The rebuilding won't be such a challenge--most of the buildings and houses are still standing. And a good part of what tourists know as New Orleans (a lot more than a few "small parcels") is dry or under just a foot or two of water.

I'm sorry, that wasn't nice of me, but I think you haven't a scintilla of idea what you are talking about. "...won't be such a challenge..."???????

Pardon me while I go outside and get rid of what's left of my late night supper.

that's where houses got smashed to smithereens. Come to New Orleans next year and take a look--it will be pretty much the same as it was.

canes at Pat O'Briens as you can drink for one solid month! But if it's still a dead city, what's your offer on the wager?

Well, I'd like to, but I probably shouldn't. So I'll wager a dinner at the best restaurant in Baton Rouge against one night's drinks at Pat O'Briens.

(I am serious) krs@ispwest.com

I'll e-mail you to make it official.

:D

The "construction" of New Orleans wasn't a "project", it was a hundred year farrago of improvisations, afterthoughts, band-aids, plastic surgery and a huge (sorry, hugh) slice of luck.

... it's the mindless screw-up of constantly channelling the Mississippi and allowing some of the most ecologically valuable delta wetlands erode away. That's killing off the sealife (we eat) and shrinking the habitat for too many critters to count. That area is a slow-motion ecological disaster -- paved over with greed and hubris.

;-)

Let's say, we might ever get a moon colony. And it fails, shoud we just abandon it? Or should we make it better?

Let's say the Space Shuttle blows up a few times in trying to figure out how to get men into space? Should we abandon that too?

Let's say, I'm sailing across the ocean on a very larger liner. I'm very confidant I'll make New York. It's a wonderful ship, called the Titanic, and she hits an iceberg. Some 1500 people die. Should we stop sailing large liners across the Atlantic? Or should we fix them?

There are NO useful sewer lines. There are NO useful electricity lines. There are NO useful water lines. There are NO useful roads, and those that are intact will have to be torn up to lay new pipes, wires, etc. Same for rail and transit. And the worst part is this: every building you see from the smallest cottage to the Superdome is unsound structurally. 99% of every building would have to be razed and rebuilt.

The city may not look it, but it is 100% obliterated. It may as well not be there at all. Do you have the hundreds of billions, probably trillions of dollars to build a city of two million people from scratch? Is it wise to spend an amount equalling as much as 1/3 of the entire expenditures of the nation rebuilding a city on a wetland near a rising sea prone to more hurricanes?

If you think it should be rebuilt, do it with your own money and kill your own people when it fails (again). I want no part in this folley.

:eyes: ... plant roses, not skunk-weed.

Nice slot machines they got there :D

the lower elevations of the city will be abandoned while the higher ground will be rebuilt.

What with tornado alley and the like, oh and the midwest sits on a mega fault line as well.


Lots of town have low-lying areas that could be divested in a freak deal like this, including the town I live in. Try to focus on the funding cuts to Army Corp, and the decimation of the marsh areas due to recent development.

Sure, the MS river could flood it and probably has but that's not anything even approaching what's going on down in NOLA. You're a LONG way above Sea Level...and anyway you're complaining about the marsh areas which ALL of NO is built on in the first place! You are arguing against YOURSELF here.

The Chicago river flows backward for a reason. They operate under the same principle as NOLA, constantly pumping to stay dry. Remember the floods of a few years ago?

A big river hub like NOLA will be rebuilt quicker than a smaler place like this river town. You are the one carping on the fact that parts of NOLA are below sealevel. Clinton is indeed a very long way above sealevel, and yet 40 years ago it was 3/4 under water.


I guess I was unaware that the only wetlands in LA were under NO. :eyes:

for me to expand my comments...I think there is far too little risk assessment considered for MANY locales, NOT just New Orleans, and many of them lie along the river near which you live. And which I lived for a number of years a few hundred miles south of you...I think it is idiotic to continue to rebuild in flood plains just as it is stupid to put a city below sea level. Yes, a tornado can wipe out a town or even a large chunk of a city (I live in the smack dab middle of tornado alley) but here is the difference:

It is IMPOSSIBLE to do anything that I'm aware of to -eliminate- the possibility that a tornado will hit any given location..........BUT it
damn sure IS possibile to eliminate the chance that the Gulf of Mexico will drain down into your city if you just make sure the goddamn thing is ABOVE sea level.

I have similar opinions concerning construction on top of the San Andreas fault (and to a lesser degree, the New Madrid 1500 miles east of there)...and I suppose you can extrapolate them as applicable...?

I'm not trying to start any fights here, just giving my professional opinion under the assumption that is still allowed. ;-)

so a "cost vs. benefits" analysis would weigh heavily in favor of pumping tons of money into keeping it going. And that's surely why it has continued to exist despite its otherwise unfavorable situation

:D
edit: Just making sure you don't think I believe that's KNEW...I do get to Japan now and then

heh

This may sound strange, but why not have a new type of Enviro World's Fair to start the rebuilding of NO? This would have to take into consideration the historical integrity of NO buildings and flavor, but why not invite the world's top leaders in environmental construction or technology to show what we may see in the future for renewable energy, etc. To show that at least part of a city can be built in a more environmental energy self sustaining way, given the unique challenges that NO has, would help in proving that with willpower it can be done anywhere. Even with a catastrophe of this level, power might still be generated in some other manner than gas/electric. This may sound naive given the administration we have, but then again I'm hoping it could generate brainstorming and better ideas in helping NO rebuild.

(No not for awhile, but these people are pretty resilient. NO will be back!)

of them will even BE there for a very long time. Nor will they really have anything to "go back to."

These people are going to put their town back together!

who have already written us off. :hug:

to most structures. But you failed to address the point that the city is being emptied of what makes a city a city, the populace. Do you really think they all would want to return to a geographical location where they USED to have a domicile that has ceased to exist? That is absurd.

What about the internets?


How many structures are missing? I saw interviews all day of folks who defied the orders and were returning to survey damage.

I would be quite surprised if they every rebuilt New Orleans right where it is. they ain't totally evacuating for the fun of it.

Or maybe the developers will take all the land ala the Supreme Court and build on the toxic sludge...that sounds about right for bushco - but regular people? I doubt will ever be able to build and live there again.

anyway.

If the Corps gets the dykes fixed, they'll be back with a passion.

Gar-un-teeeed.

In the spirit of Cindy Sheehan's altruism, when we rebuild my beautiful city, including the majestic areas outside of the French Quarter, we will welcome you warmly.

New Orleans and have for over 40 years. I have been there at least 25 times and I think it has been one of the most amazingly cosmopolitan cities that was ever my pleasure to visit (and I have been to exactly 52 countries)...but sadly I am forced to face a reality which I can only liken to that when one of my dearly loved pets has reached the end of its life and must be allowed to die in dignity. I say this with only the utmost sadness. ;(

edit: couple silly typos

:hug:

I disagree because I intend to rebuild, with whomever is willing to help. It may get hit again with a hurricane and flood again... and I will help, yet again, to rebuild. New Orleans is, in my opinion, the Soul of America.

That AFTER they repair all the levies, it will take six months, 24/7, to pump out the water. But that's only if it doesn't rain for the next six months.

His remark was off the record, but his back of the envelope calculations backed up his estimate.

...