People wrongly say about New Orleans she shouldn't be rebuilt

because much of the city's in a "bowl" below sea level and by a river that could flood.

Why don't such people say about Californians that they shouldn't build on fault lines or in hills prone to wildfires?

Or that Floridians, New Yorkers, and everybody else by a seacoast shouldn't build there?

Just wondering because it bugs me to hear people say that about New Orleans, which is a valuable city that should not be lost.

It's like telling people to not go swimming because hundreds (thousands?) drowned every year.

It's not logical. You take your risks. We all do. We all drive, even though so many people are killed in car accidents a year.

That's life. I live like not even a half-mile from a major fault. If it goes, I'm fucked.

But it's the risk I take.

So I guess it's the same as New Orleans.

California and the Gulf Coast cost us billions every year.

In California's case, just as with NOLA, part of the problem is cause by man's need to protect himself from nature. Population causes the need for fire prevention, thus leading to timber build-up. Population causes the need for flood prevention, which messes with the river's natural flood plain.

In those other cities, the human population, itself, doesn't seem to contribute to what causes the strain in the first place.

Many cities along rivers would flood regularly if not for dikes and dams. Much of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys would either be flooded or completely useless for agriculture. I don't get the argument either.

Well, I think I do actually, but who would admit to not giving a crap about a bunch of poor black people.

is actually built a story up from where it was originally placed.

The river will win there, too.

It made it a lot easier for the country to hate the victims, if they convinced them this would never happen to them.

Even many Dems have swallowed this line. It worked, because nationally, like always, the Dems did not have our back. They turned tail and ran from the situation. They did this b/c they saw the R's were succeeding in turning public opinion against New Orleans.

The other reason, is b/c the DLC believes in all the same anti-government talking points the R's used Katrina to help advance.

was it out of cowardice--being afraid to stand up to the GOP on New Orleans when the GOP was in power, or is there something more to it?

The side making the argument that "oh well, people deserved to die" comes off a lot "tougher" than the empathetic argument.

In fact, I think that's why many liberals don't stand up for our side. B/c the empathetic argument is always less macho, less forceful, and easier to shout down than the tough love/survivalist argument.

Also though, I don't think the DLC minded the GOP's using Katrina to hammer away on government. Even Obama was bad-mouthing the post office during this healthcare debate. He and others in his group would be under even more pressure to support the public option and other liberal causes if government hadn't (intentionally) bungled the Katrina response.

I mean something sinister like what was behind BushCo's inaction in the face of New Orleans' drowning and his subsequent leaving her to die.

fire-prone hills of southern California, and we should NOT build on barrier islands that get hit by hurricanes every three years.

And if New Orleans could be re-built five miles upstream where it is NOT in a flood basin, it should be re-built there.

All around there world there are cities that were overwhelmed by their geographical misplacement. Cadiz, Spain, sits above an ancient city that is under water in the Bay of Cadiz, because the Phonecians who originally built there didn't know that the city was sinking, or the ocean rising. Failed cities abound in flood plains and jungles and beneath lava flows.

Just because the original settlers who founded New Orleans a mere three centuries ago as a fairly minor trading post on a few hills above the flood basin chose that spot, it doesn't mean it is sustainable for a major city. What it needs to do is as Cadiz did - back it up a couple miles to put it above the water level. That's what people have done for thousands of years when nature has told them to move - they moved.

Because nature ALWAYS wins, in the end.

This country was built on that trading post that sits at the mouth of the Mississippi River. There's a reason people settle at the mouth of major rivers, especially the most important one in the country.

We were fine when we had enough wetlands to protect us. We could end this argument right now and use a small percentage of the money that went towards either the TARP bailouts OR the stimulus package, and build a levee to the standards the Dutch had.

Nice place. Nature will win in the end there too, just with a lot less music and some crappy food.

is rarely damaged in any of these floods or hurricanes. The French generally had good sense about building sites, although some have been washed away over the years.

The old city stayed high and dry - just as it was built. It was the places where people depended on levees that wound up under water.

The only reason the Dutch built below sea level is because 40% of the entire country is reclaimed land below sea level. Wherever there was the opportunity to build above sea level, they did.

There is plenty of land in the region of NO that is above sea level - relocate the city to that land and it will live for a thousand years.

If it is not relocated, it will eventually wind up like Old Cadiz, under 30' of water. Levees, like dams, are unsustainable in the long term. All they can do if offer the illusion of control. There is no more powerful earth-shaping force than water, and water will do what it wants to do.

New Orleans doesn't get hit by natural disasters any more often than many other major cities. Lots of cities would be flooded if a dam or dike broke. Do you not remember the Mississippi flood back in the 90s? Why is nobody calling for St Louis to be moved? Some parts of St Louis get flooded repeatedly, my grandfather used to help keep the water back, over and over. The people had nowhere else to go.

They've started changing the flood plain and building laws in most of the country. I would guess they did in New Orleans too. But it still doesn't mean nobody will ever get flooded again. That's an impossibility if you understand the magnitude of a 100 year or 500 year flood.

Take reasonable precautions and build appropriately for the dangers there. If you build in a fire prone area, use fire resistant materials and make sure you clear flammable materials for a good distance away from your house.

If you build where there is flooding or storm surge, elevate your house.

If you build where strong wind storms (hurricanes or tornadoes) build houses with a higher wind resistance or build a storm shelter.

There are reasons why it is appealing to live in areas that hold dangers - climate, culture, jobs, family - but we have the technology to make it safer if they want to live there bad enough.

In an ideal world people would not build where there are dangers or where they stretch the resources (water is the biggie). But there are too many people for that to happen.

These days, I don't believe anyone should build on barrier islands on anywhere that is less than a minimum of ten feet above sea level elevation - but that would mean moving millions of people in large areas of Florida and the Southeast coasts!

of your ways.

Hopefully if a tornado rips through your neighborhood and kills a loved one, you don't complain one bit about the tragedy.

It's your own fault, I guess, for living there.

Look at some fundamental geological facts. Much of NOLA isn't only in a "bowl"....the HIGH ground is built on 70 feet of silt...not bedrock. Lake Pontchartrain isn't really a "lake"...it's an estuary of the Gulf of Mexico. A lot of NOLA is just reclaimed swampland...homes built on swamp muck that constantly sinks, with the added peril of being below or only marginally above sea level, in the middle of a "swamp", in the path of flooding conditions every few years.

Again. Yes. There are other cities in the U.S. with issues...but New Orleans has been a fundamental clusterfuck since 1718.

more than that, really--which our government is already doing such as wars overseas and bank bailouts. How about investing them in preserving beautiful historic New Orleans and her unique culture which is found no place else in the US?

without having people live in them. In fact that is usually the case.

Culture can be maintained with a smaller population, built on the higher lands.

Galveston was once the 4th largest port in the US, when a hurricane came through in 1900 and completely destroyed the place they rebuilt the port, inland, in houston where it would be safer. Galveston remains, but in a smaller capacity with fewer big infrastructure investments.

That seems a wise decisions. Keep New orleans, but smaller. Rebuild the levies, and build homes on the higher land, while maintaining the historic and economic areas.

How many other cities are sitting in a clusterfuck region?

San Francisco is a sitting duck. They had an earthquake the last century that completely demolished most of the city. There is the potential for another quake to do the same.

Should we just pave over SF?

What about Los Angeles?

It's the same difference. Prior to Katrina, how was NO any different than those two regions? The only difference is they saw their major catastrophic disaster in OUR lifetime.

It wasn't much different than the 8.0 quake that hit San Francisco in 1906.

If an 8.0 were to hit that area TODAY, it'd wipe out the entire city and probably put Katrina to shame.

are going to liquefy.

If Venice is still there and Amsterdam is still there, there's no reason we can't rebuild NOLA and naysayers don't have to move there.

Sorry. :(

Same will happen here in Salt Lake.

Half the valley is built on soft ground that once belonged to the Great Salt Lake/Lake Bonneville.

We're expected to have a 7.0-7.5 here in the next 50 years that could result in up to 6,000 deaths. The area by the airport will liquefy, while the Great Salt Lake could flood neighborhoods west of downtown Salt Lake.

It'll be a mess.

the land here shakes like jello. Did I say land? I meant, sand!

But there are tons of faults in California. All you have to do to find one is look for a big development like a hospital or a college or a stadium. :)

As I mentioned in another post, a fault runs right through my neighborhood - a few blocks west of here.

You can tell where the fault is because on one side, the street is non-hilly and on the other, you've got huge, steep hills.

pointed at this one strip of land along the coast about 10 miles south of SF. "See that? That used to be in San Diego!"

And that whole neighborhood is being subducted, if that's the right word.

In the town Morgan Hill, you can see the sidewalk moving north while the rest of the continent is moving south. Freaky. My Berkeley house slid on its foundation when Loma Prieta hit and one of these days, the UC Regents are going to have two nice half circles were the Bears Stadium used to be because the Hayward Fault runs right through it.

Real estate appraisers make a bundle here. :)

It's weird.

Like it sits higher than most on the street.

:dunce:

infrastructure. What do you have on a major fault?"

actually they have fairly docile weather compared to here.

Like saying Tulsa has managed just fine without levies to prevent flooding, so why should we build them in NOLA?

Apples to oranges.

Not the earthquake.

http://www.1906eqconf.org/plenarySessions.htm

Those are your words, and they are wrong.

I'm curious as to what your definition of "clusterfuck region" is. Once again, by 1906 buildings in San Francisco were being built with an eye toward earthquake protection. It was the resulting fires that destroyed the city.

I've lived in Los Angeles most of my life, and am a native of L.A. County. I've been here for the biggest of the earthquakes since 1971, and would beg to differ that you could compare L.A. or S.F. to NOLA. "how was NO any different from those two regions?" you ask. The largest difference is that Nawlins sits below sea-level. That puts it at the mercy of something that covers 70% of the planet: water. When water doesn't like you, you're fucked. Witness the Grand Canyon. I'd be hard pressed to find something that an earthquake, or a thousand years of earthquakes caused that would even begin to equal the dramatic effect that water had in the creation of the Grand Canyon. Sure, there are the Sierra Mountains, and there is even a cemetery for those killed in an earthquake in either Lone Pine, or Independence, I'm not sure which one. A hundred and a few. Water kills thousands, tens of thousands, HUNDREDS of thousands at a time. Earthquakes don't do that. In fact, in 1964, in Alaska, there was an earthquake that measured 9.2 and lasted nearly FIVE MINUTES. Only 131 deaths are directly attributed to that quake, which occured just a few miles offshore. That earthquake caused the ENTIRE world to vibrate.

There is no comparison that I know of where you could quantatitively compare the damage caused by seismic activity and that caused by water.

Challenging the level of the oceans by living below them while living next to them and thinking that you're protected by some dirt mounds is folly.

The Alaska quake you cite had the benefit of extremely low population and the quake happened on Good Friday as well. So good one to use! 131. Tell me what the population of the entire state was that year, and Anchorage, just so we can get a percentage, would you?
As a CA native and quake veteran, let me just say that my pals at Cal Tech would find your division of water and earth movements to be laughable. Quakes cause tsumamis. Earth pushes water. Hundreds of thousands die. From earth and water. So there you go.

be the Kobe earthquake. A major temblor in a modern, developed nation. OF COURSE, in Kashmir there were 80,000 casualties, where half the population lives in mortared masonry buildings which collapse if a large truck drives past.

The Kobe quake was 7.2 richter scale, in a densely populated region, and killed 6500 people. But it could be, and was, prepared for - a similar earthquake in 1923 killed 140,000 - because they were only then learning how to properly build for earthquakes and most of the buildings pre-dated earthquake resistant construction.

And just as today we know how to build to best resist earthquakes, we ALSO know that if you build up areas that are below sea level, they WILL flood. There is not a dam ever built that will not one day collapse. There is not one dike or levee build that will not eventually fail. The way to prevent flooding is to not build where there will be flooding. Period.

Mt Rainier blows it could be very disastrous. It could produce massive lahars that can reach all the way to the Puget Sound and south Seattle. The lahars would certainly demolish most of the nearby cities and the death toll would reach all of all nearby cities. Also on the History Channel the scientists suggest that the lahar overflow into the Puget Sound would cause tsunamis. It hasn't erupted in quite some time but it's still an active volcano.

WAY worse.

There, I said it.

DC was originally situated in what was arguably the worst piece of land we had available. Foreign diplomats were paid more to be stationed there than other posts because it was considered a hardship.

It was a filthy, dank swamp. Still is, in a metaphorical sense at least.

Priorities....some countries have the population's welfare as high priority.

What works for them can't necessarily be applied directly to a radically different situation.

look up the north sea flood of 1953, an acknowledged 1,835 deaths in the netherlands, hundreds more in the U.K. -- in other words, almost a perfect counterpart to hurricane katrina

they might not call 'em hurricanes but they have REAL STORMS up north too

instead of crying in their beer and going "oh noes, it's all hopeless" the dutch picked themselves up and became experts in re-building and re-claiming land -- little choice in the matter really, they're a small low lying country so i don't know what else you would suggest to them

if they can do it, we can do it, in fact, hell, we are doing it

in number or scope.

Besides, as you say, they don't have a choice. They are a tiny nation with many people hemmed in by the ocean and their neigbhors.

We are a huge nation, with low population density. We don't need to reclaim land from the ocean to live on.

also your ignorance is showing

new orleans is not reclaimed from ocean, it is the most practical place for the port to be and it is 60 miles inland from the ocean

i don't care how "huge" our nation, we CANNOT afford to abandon having a port at the mouth of the mississippi river

until such time as you use no oil and gas (domestic comes from the gulf of mexico), eat no seafood, and use no products transported up/down the mississippi (every fucking thing that's bulky including grain and coal) you need to acknowledge that your very life would be impossible without new orleans

or just be hypocrite and take and take and don't appreciate what you are given, seriously, dude, do you have a conscience?

don't drive a car, don't eat a food, and then come back and tell me how america doesn't need new orleans

but if you drive, heat your house, and eat food...you are living on our backs so a little gratitude might be in order

we give FAR more than we have ever taken, FAR more

the port system, and that a smaller city simply could not function in that regard?

This is incorrect of course.

And as I'm sure you well know much of the gas for this country comes through houston, a major port built well *inland* to reduce the damage done by hurricanes.

In fact it is absolutely hypocritical of you to insist that so much of our petroleum shipping should be put in such a risky place, when we have the technology and money to move it inland where it is safer.

I'll assume that when the next hurricane wrecks NOLA and shuts down shipping for a length of time you will abstain from using any product that would have been shipped through the city but instead had to be rerouted?

You seem to think that a desire to protect this port by putting it in a safer spot means I am against having this port at all. Of course that is an idiotic sentiment, which I assume you will retract.

There is plenty of rural land north of NO. SO we have very few people living on the high elevation low flood land and a lot of people living on the below sea level high flood risk land.

Doesn't seem to be the most useful allocation of natural resources. Now before Katrina it would have been very expensive to "shrink" the city but post Katrina the funds used for rebuilding could be used to rebuild to the North and the new city would be safer.

but i've noticed that people who criticize new orleans for rebuilding tend to be those who have no knowledge of geography so i'll let it slide

we have the longest bridge in the world going north of new orleans, 24 miles, and it was built with 1950s tech

your town can't do that, even fucking CHINA can't do that, so maybe those of you who CAN'T shouldn't be telling those who CAN how to get things done

Ever heard of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel? Selected as one of the 7 wonders of the modern world?

BTW as of 2000 the worlds longest bridge is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang_Na_Expressway

However after this side detour about bridges and who's is longest and all that fun stuff back to the topic.

What about north of the lake which is only about 30km across?

What about all the communites up there?

Doing what you suggest is a lot less feasible than simply building the levees up to the standards that the Corps of Engineers said they were. Plus, and evacuation plan that included the last 10% with no vehicles would make more sense.

Also, the northshore floods when the hurricanes hit to the west of New Orleans bringing the storm surge from the lake northward.

Lastly, I don't think the cost of rebuilding and the cost of moving the ciy are comparable.

New Orleans does not have to be IN New Orleans. There is nothing sacred about that patch of swamp. The whole city can be moved north of Lake Ponchartrain, leaving 'historic' New Orleans on the small amount of high ground where it was founded, and 'New' New Orleans would never have to worry about storm surge from hurricanes again.

It is, and always has been, DUMB to build below sea level when you don't have to.

Call it 'racism' to abandon a failing city? What would you call building cheap houses in low lying areas that can be counted on to flood at the drop of a hat, or a levee, and selling them to the city's black population? You really think it was just coincidence that the flooded sections were nearly all black communities? They were built there so the black residents would take the loss when the inevitable happened, rather than the white residents. Demanding to rebuild those neighborhoods is demanding to be victimized again.

Little bit hypocritical.

We don't actually get that many tornados here, nor do we get federal funding to repair afterwards.

Texas is larger than most countries, you can't really apply what you've heard about one part to the entire state.

hmm

for every dollar we put in.

LA gets $1.45 for every dollar they put in.

the 17ST canal failed at its thinnest point.

N.O.'s levees could be widened if you were
allowed to take half the city's land.

so it's not a valid comparison.

Parts of california, florida, etc.

TAhe main difference between New Orleans and California is that in new orleans they are rebuilding on the governments (our) dime. In CA they are doing it with their own money.

I tend to care more about wasted money when it's part mine than if it's not mine at all.

The dollars spent on NOLA are a bargain. By all rights, the state should get that money.

it's not either we get oil out of the gulf but don't rebuild, or we do and then rebuild. They are separate issues.

We needn't waste money rebuilding NOLA when this will obviously happen again.

I mean, look what happened when we rebuilt San Fran after the big one at the beginning of last century. It happened again in '88. What a waste!

And believe you me, New Orleanians are rebuilding with their own money. Show me where that tax money is going to rebuilding homes---or even getting to New Orleans at all!

How in the world did you make it to 1000 posts on DU?

No tax money is going to rebuild new orleans? That's a ridiculous statement, I'll assume you are mistaken.

And it doesn't have to be this bad for it to still be a waste. It could be half as a bad and still be a major issue. How often does new orleans get hit by hurricanes? It's not unheard of.

Why would reducing the size, maintaining historical and economic areas, and moving the residential areas to higher land, slight north of where they are, completely destroy the entire state and their culture? Seems reasonable to me.

I'm confused as to where you're suggesting.

What about New York, built on all that granite?

And I'm not saying it was no tax money, but it's a lot less than people think. Most of it hasn't made it's way to NO, and a lot of that is the rest of LA's fault. But that total is greatly exaggerated.

and disappearing in to corruption doesn't really make me feel better about it (especially since not much has actually been rebuilt.

Why not move much of it north of the lake, providing a buffer and allowing for it to flood without completely destroying all residences?

come and visit, as far as new orleans proper, without taking a special tour, you won't even be able to tell that anything happened

i lived here, it's fucking rebuilt

get over it, the rumors of our death were greatly exaggerated by the ignorant

much of the city has not been rebuilt, particularly the subsidized housing, that's why many poorer residents have not been able to return. This is a fact.

Good for you that everything is exactly back to the way it was (not really), just in time for next hurricane season.

This will continue to happen as the site was poorly chosen. Katrina gave us the opportunity to rectify that mistake, the people of Louisiana chose not to. So unfortunately they, and the rest of us, will have to continue to pay to rebuild the city again and again.

This is part of the reason Louisiana is a net loss for federal taxes.

the part that was actually underwater. The area where virtually every single house was condemned, where the vast majority of the victims died.

That's the area that needs to be turned into park land because it WILL flood again and people WILL die there again if it is rebuilt.

Despite what some people are claiming, that everything is back to normal, nothing to see here, NOLA still has many lingering problems.

Anything built below sea level is going to have issues with flooding. When it's also near the coast and gets hurricanes on a regular basis then it will flood. Period, end of story.

This doesn't represent a personal judgment on the people there, nor is it based on hatred or anything like that. It is merely the truth, backed by common sense and plenty of evidence. That people are arguing against this just shows that emotions are trumping logic for some.

...

do your freakin' homework. Going north of Lake Ponchartrain puts you in Covington, about 20-30 miles off the Mississippi River.

Absolutely unbelievable that you'd go out of your way to bash New Orleans while demonstrating such vast ignorance on the subject at the same time. What brings you to DU if you have an attitude like that?

Do you realize it is a major port?

Apparently Texans are capable of engineering projects that lowly Louisianians cannot even fathom.

Frankly I find your "it's impossible, lets give up" attitude disturbing.

than the Houston Ship Channel.

I can't believe I'm arguing with you, I don't believe you're for real.

the panama canal. Somehow that was built as well.

Really you shouldn't underestimate your own people this much. Or if they really are so lazy and inept as to be unable to perform such a task, well you have the whole other 49 states to pull people from.

Do you not see the problem with building through Lake Ponchartrain, or having an entire city commute from there to New Orleans? Or are you being purposefully obtuse because that is your job?

that what we have now, and shouldn't maintain things as they were simply because that's the way they've always been?

Or to assume that most people are capable of bettering themselves, rather than concluding that certain tasks are impossible for certain people?

Well on that we'll just have to disagree. I think the people of NOLA are capable of building a better, more intelligently built city free largely from these problems, you think they are not up to such a task. I believe things should be changed when they are shown to be a failure, you believe in staying the course regardless of the cost.

I should ask, how did someone as conservative and condescending as you end up on DU?

if not most responders are against the idea of rebuilding as-was.

Or at least you're accusing me of denigrating the people by not signing them off on senseless tasks.

Does a city have character?

Here I thought it was made up of people, who had characteristics, but had no opinions of its own.

one of them did I? That was easy.

If someone sits in their house while it's burning down because, "I've always lived here, never died before, and it's just as dangerous everywhere else as it is right here" how do you respond?

If everything's on fire around you, and all the roads are blocked, and you don't have a car, then what?


Here's a better metaphor. Your grandmother dies in a fire, and some asshole gets on a message board to rant about all the things she could've done to get out of the way of the fire, bungling the basic facts all the way. That'd be the appropriate metaphor here.

I disagree.

"Here's a better metaphor. Your grandmother dies in a fire, and some asshole gets on a message board to rant about all the things she could've done to get out of the way of the fire, bungling the basic facts all the way. That'd be the appropriate metaphor here."

How about if she had exposed wiring, lined her walls with gasoline soaked rags, had a malfunctioning pilot light and water heater and was repeatedly warned to do something about all this, but decided not to on the grounds that she'd always done it this way and saw no reason to change now?

And then someone went online and pointed out all the things she did wrong in the hopes that others would be spared her inevitable fate.

Pointing out what people did/do wrong in a natural disaster so they can improve it next time is not the same as criticizing them for having a natural disaster.

Like after 911, people pointing out why it happened were not necessarily cheering it on were they?

did not because of their self-imposed obstacles, then you're not living in reality. Especially with the tone you're taking with it's survivors and relatives of the living and the dead. I'm through with you.

which in the past have protected NOLA from flood have been all but destroyed. You bet there's a correlation. We kill their buffer and blame them. Typical.

A large amount of the wetlands were simply paved over to add more usable land to the already crowded city. The soft ground limits vertical expansion like what normally happens in a city that size and instead the city expanded into the wetlands.

Regulations can't stop shipping, oil and gas
Monday, March 05, 2007
By Matthew Brown
Staff writer

Second in a series

As the person in charge of permitting oil and gas exploration along Louisiana's coastline, Jim Rives has seen his job get "a little easier" in recent years. Increasingly, projects that once would have raised troublesome wetland issues sail through with few questions.

But that's only because much of the protected marsh has vanished.

With about a third of the state's historical coastal wetlands now open water -- due to erosion greatly hastened by canals cut by oil and shipping industries -- the chance of a dredging or pipeline project slicing through virgin marsh has dropped accordingly.

"If our goal is to minimize the impacts on the wetlands, the fact that there are less wetlands to protect makes it a little easier sometimes," said Rives, coastal management administrator for the state Department of Natural Resources.

The irony isn't lost on him.

http://www.nola.com/archives/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1172887211154410.xml&coll=1

statistical, admit it, you're just making "stuff" up

the "soft ground" does not limit vertical expansion, guess what we have skyscrapers like anyone else

the city expanded into the wetlands because of corrupt developers, and i agree that those who developed new orleans east should be hanged (or hanged in effigy, they've taken the money and run) but what's done is done...plus not that many people are actually going back to the area

the higher historical areas...it's like nothing ever happened

come and see for yourself

and we have skyscrapers just fucking fine and not a one of them fell down in katrina, one shell square anyone????

It took nearly 30 years for expansion to swallow the wetlands.

Where was the govt during all that? Where were the people? To pin this on a few "greedy developers" who nobody can name is disingenuous.

I never said it was impossible to build skyscrapers in new Orleans however it is much more difficult and expensive to build them. Compare New Orleans to any other city its size and you will notice less skyscrapers and shorter skyscrapers. This put expansion land at a premium and EVERYONE looked the other way. More land = more people = more power, more tax money, more business, more development.

It isnt like the wetlands disappeared overnight.

the oil platforms are out in the gulf, didn't affect the wetlands.

And if your concerns are with the preservation of the wetlands wouldn't that argue for less building, fewer homes and urban sprawl? Parking lots and apartments generally aren't good for wetlands. So that would argue for less development, and a contraction of what has already been built.

One thing it doesn't argue for is massive spending on more growth, more building, more pavement.

as a result of canal building.

New land being destroyed for canals could be reduced if we started expanding the ones we have, in to the city.

How does preserving and expanding new orleans address this issue?

please do.

directly impacts the wetlands.

As far as restoring NOLA, it has to be done. It's one of our busiest ports as well as an invaluable historical site. Obviously, it has to be done carefully with the long view in mind. There are several projects dedicated to protecting and restoring the wetlands. Those need to be supported.

for the ports to function?

We need large groups of people living there for the historical sites to exist?

How is reducing the size of the city, but maintaining the ports and other significant areas, someone evil?

The wetlands are impacted not by the oil, but by poor planning, that could be fixed if we weren't obsessed with rebuilding this city in a bad spot.

by the ports do you?

The first reasonable place to put a port on the major river system of North America.

Boats coming down the river were unpowered and ships could anchor at the mouth of the river. Goods could get very close to the coastal docks using the power of the river (faster & cheaper than manually moving them).

Given lack of modern transit systems people had to live close to their employment thus the population lived in the same location.

Today that isn't a requirement. The majority of the population center could be moved upstream with the port and historical centers kept intact. A 30 mile daily commute is no longer an impossibility as it was in the 18th century.

...When the French discovered the short route over to the lake that would allow them to avoid the circuitous miles of river that frequently changed course between New Orleans and the mouth of the Mississippi, they quickly staked claim.

new orleans is in fact already re-built, albeit with a somewhat smaller population (and currently allowing too many blighted houses to remain standing IMHO)

just 4 years on and we've done remarkable things, that many of us thought it would take a decade to do

sure there are lots of folks around the country with "can't do" spirit, but that's not the american way

historical new orleans, french quarter and uptown, is not in any case "in a bowl," who started this myth? the old time settlers weren't idiots, they picked the higher ground to live on

unfortunately many poorer areas are in low lying/swampy areas -- lower 9th ward being the famous example, new orleans east being another, you could argue about the value of rebuilding in some of those low lying areas but that's a far cry from refusing to rebuild the city, port, etc.

i will say this, i DON'T agree that nursing homes etc. should be rebuilt on the lowest ground, we had too many old folks killed in st. bernard parish because they had too many nursing homes there frankly, esp. considering the mr-go situation which funneled water into that parish -- but now the mr-go is closed and st. bernard parish will presumably be safer going forward -- considering that entire parish was pretty much destroyed, they're really starting to make some progress too -- i mention st. bernard as a reminder that there are lots of areas outside new orleans that are still taking much more time to get back to anything like normal

of Kaua'i after the Devasting Cat 5, Hurricane Iniki, of 9/11/'92.

As other stated, there is no real safe place to build. The earth is a dynamic planet and it will continue to change and behave the way it does. There are just more people and as we settle in areas, there will be more danger for us. As long as we understand that danger, prepare, and make the necessary infrastructure developments we can live in places like the Gulf Coast, NO, Los Angeles, and San Francisco or places in Tornado alley.

The NO thing was not about natural disasters, it was about the fact that there were a bunch of poor people of color living in the town. If it were a place filled with upper class folk 1. The levees would have been repaired, and 2. The disaster relief would have been quicker and 3.There would not have been talk of abandoning the city.

New Orleans needs people to help her rebuild and it's so much easier to sit there and point out why she shouldn't be, without taking so many, many factors into account. By the same token we should pave over the forests of SoCal, because they go up about once a year.

the brushlands there are incompatible with human occupation. The natural cycle there is small, regular, seasonal brush fires which clear away vegetation and fertilize the earth. Many of the native plants there are evolved to 'seed' only after a fire, when nutrients from the burning are available for the new seeds. In fact, many of the seeds will NOT germinate unless there has been a fire.

But people move in and suppress the regular, seasonal brushfires, which causes a huge buildup of flamable material, so when there is a fire instead of it being a small, local thing it becomes the inferno we see on the news.

There are places were people are just not meant to be, and being there creates more problems than they can address.

BTW, they don't go up 'once a year'. The go up once every five to ten years. If they went up once a year they would not be nearly as devastating.

Channelizing the Mississippi in the name of flood control has starved the Delta of much needed soil and nutrients, causing the wetlands to disappear under rising saltwater.

Many of those upstream levies need to be removed or changed to allow water to flow through the delta. The delta, in addition to being habitat for many commercially important species, also serves as a barrier to storm surges.

make it so that it laughs in contempt of a category 5 hurricane!

we are either a "can do" or a "can't do" nation

despite all the bluster and all the "we'll rebuild bigger and better" after 911, there is no wtc on ground zero and i'll leave it to residents of nyc to tell me if there will ever be

however, despite all the bluster and cowardice of "gosh, it might happen again" in new orleans, we're here, we've rebuilt, and we're open for business

come on down and see for yourself

you can sit on your hands and cry "oh woe" and there will always be someone or something to challenge you, be it mother nature, be it war, be it terror -- or you can pick yourself up and move forward -- new orleans chooses to move forward and we HAVE moved forward

is everything perfect? is everything rebuilt? are the levees now cat 5 quality? no, it's a work in progress...but we're doing this...we're really doing this

cowards and naysayers need not apply, they can go back to watching episodes of american idol or whatever they're doing today to excuse their naysaying existence

we're getting it done

i remind looking down from my airplane and virtually every roof was a "blue roof" -- every structure had some damage, whether wind or water, now??? you honestly can't see a problem from the air

Here is what our continent will look like when/if the polar ice caps melt: (And don't say that will never happen, since RIVERS are pouring off the ice caps as we speak, and nothing significant is being done to stop it).


"This is a slide from a University of Florida "Biology for Engineers" lecture. If all the polar ice melts, Florida and Louisiana will disappear. The Mississippi River will flood to and consume Memphis. Eleven of the country's 25 largest cities will be inundated, including Washington D.C."

just so i'm clear on how silly you are

have you looked at that projection for the uk and for the netherlands? do you suppose they plan to give up london and, oh, the entire country of the netherlands? no, they don't, they have a plan in the making, and they'll do just fine because we HAVE the technology, all we lack is the will

we NEED the jobs (all 3 nations are advanced ones, where as time goes on, there will be fewer and fewer jobs for more and more people, thanks to advanced tech, so finding an important and productive outlet for people could be considered socialism or it could be just considered good common sense)

can do or can't do...it's america's choice...

global warming will happen and it isn't just about new orleans, we can focus on learning from this disaster and learning how to build better for the future, or we can just cry and give up our major cities

me, my vote is for learn and move toward the future instead of crying and give up, i'm just funny that way

You can't really rebuild them, unless you wanted to build entire islands.

I am not suggesting this will happen really soon, but it is the direction things are going in. So New Orleans will be more and more vulnerable as time goes on, and bigger and stronger levees needed, all while hurricanes become stronger because the ocean waters are warmer. And eventually, if this model is correct, it will be impossible to rebuild because it will simply be under too much water.

When/if that happens, how many of our tax dollars will be floating out to sea?

So you are suggesting we have the technology to build underwater cities? And that other countries are currently planning for this approach?

Do you have a link?

...is that it appears to show California's Coast Range and Washington's Olympic Peninsula underwater and that wouldn't happen. I've heard complete melting of the Antarctic Ice Cap (because the Arctic is already in the ocean) is supposed to raise sea level some 260 feet. The terrain in both the aforementioned areas is inarguably higher than that.

It also appears to show no change up the Columbia River Valley, which would be wrong.

was! My 2 cents worth. But we all know that NO will never ever be the same! What a waste of a great city and its culture!

Build better levies and restore the protective wetlands. The city does not need to be abandoned, but much of the damage man has done to the surrounding areas needs to be reversed to protect the city. Better disaster planning and evacuation plans are needed too.

I see as we need to reasses where we build across the country.

There are places in Cali that should not have been built on to begin with, natural cycle and all that. And to NOLA only after we put in some severe dikes, like in the Netherlands...

The cost of either is so astronomically high that good luck on selling it.

...Without the flooding to renew the silt, the land sinks (especially with the weight of structure atop it and the gas being extracted beneath it).

With the flooding needed to maintain height, it becomes difficult to live there.

to rebuild it, in the same place in the same way.

Thankfully some bright engineer told him that if he did that, it would fall again, in the same way.

There are several possible responses to that, of course.

In earthquake country, or fire country, or along the coasts, or in tornado alley, life is safe 99% of the time. Nature cooperates 99% of the time. There is no danger 99% of the time. The risks, while real, are uncommon.

New Orleans sits below sea level, which means that groundwater and the ocean are trying to flood it out every single minute of every single day. Keeping New Orleans dry is a constant, never ending fight. Nature doesn't want the city there and will never stop trying to flood and destroy it. Not for one minute.

That said, I really don't care if the people of New Orleans are willing to live with this risk and want to rebuild their city. I just don't want the federal government to pay for it. If you choose to live in a stupidly dangerous place, and something stupidly dangerous happens to you, then it should be your problem. That goes for the residents of New Orleans, people who build homes 3 feet from the brush in wildfire country, and idiots who build their homes on sandbars in hurricane land.

Let's let the country survive without all the good that come through New Orleans, if you don't want to foot the bill for it.

I really have to wonder where these people are coming from!

Only a fraction of the city of New Orleans is actually employed by the port or port supporting companies. A substantial portion of the city is also above sea level and did not flood after Katrina.

The fault lines are constantly building pressure for the next release. Of course, we have no levies for that at all, so nothing is done. Calling Earthquakes in CA uncommon is like saying they don't have many cars. Nature does not want those cities there either. It is burning Los Angeles yet again, even as we speak.
Earthquakes with dozens of deaths in CA are more common that flooding in NOLA resulting in deaths. Their cities sit on and between various faults.
Can you name a city that you think nature actually wants? I find that nature has no regard for our grand buildings. I've seen her knock down freeways more often than, let's say, I've seen the 9th ward flood. She is no respecter of your 'planning'.

Quakes capable of actually damaging anything are extremely uncommon. Most Californians don't even think about them, and only a small percentage of younger Californian's can even tell you the last time they felt one.

And I've already said that I don't think the FedGov should be paying to rebuild the homes of the idiots who live in the firelands.

Socializing the risks while privatizing the benefits is a very Republican concept. If the government is going to be expected to rebuild every time something like this happens, the government needs to start applying punitive recovery taxes to those properties every time they sell for a profit...with no exemptions. If you want to socialize the risk, you need to socialize the reward too.

I propose a 20% tax on all property sales in all high risk areas. Do that, and I won't oppose the rebuilding of New Orleans.

some people really believe NOLA is at no greater risk than any other spot in the US. If they can't accept that basic fact then further reasoning with them becomes difficult.

Cities in natural-disaster prone areas will incur more damage than safe cities. They'll attract fewer businesses and residents, and lose money each time they are hit. They'll eventually decline and fail, especially in America today, where we don't believe in helping neighbors with anything larger than a cup of sugar.

a flood plain. Many people can't build where they want because the government doesn't allow them too.
It's based upon probability of a disaster. Can't build near Mt. St. Helens anymore either.

NO is in a flood plain, why rebuild it when it will just flood again?