Rebuild NO? No

[IDemo]

The rebuilding and re-settling of New Orleans appears to be a sure thing from media reports; a matter of how long, and how expensive, not of how realistic.

New Orleans is (was) a city with a rich history and tradition in America. But unfortunately, it was built on the mother of all floodplains.

The geological factors point to an unsuitable location for human habitation: a bowl of silt, below sea level, surrounded by the Missisippi River, Lake Pontchartrain, and the Gulf of Mexico. The haphazard system of levees which have been built over the decades were never intended to protect against a Katrina-sized 28-foot storm swell. And, whether or not you believe in the culpability of humans in the global warming problem, some scientists have stated that global warming will contribute energy to future tropical storms. We still have another full month of hurricane season this year.

The area formerly known as New Orleans should be given back to nature, and its former residents must find other areas to live. The construction of a seawall/levee system strong enough to safeguard the area against another Katrina would in itself be prohibitively expensive. That, combined with the costs of rebuilding and insuring the residential, business, transportation network, and utility infrastructure, make reconstruction a bad prospect.

I recognize that SF wasn't bulldozed after the World Series quake, and that Floridians take hurricanes on a yearly basis. The choice to live where you will, regardless of risk, is your's to take. But for anyone expecting a massive rebuild of New Orleans, in the same bowl of silt, 5 feet below sea level, awaiting the next Katrina (or worse), perhaps it is time to move on. Literally.

[hlthe2b]

1. So, why don't you take that message to the Netherlands?

Thankfully, the decision isn't up to you.

[Alcibiades]

4. Dam those Dutch!

And their interference with mother nature! It galls me that they think they have a right to their own little country, when the land was much more good to humanity when it was sea floor.

Dam them!

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Yes, and they stubbornly refuse to get with the program!

by that I mean, the control freaks who are on a rampage all over the rest of this planet- and yet those nutty Dutch insist on, you know, coddling potheads instead of arresting them, having lax attitudes towards sex, and all that! While the world trudges inexorably towards corporate-dominated theocratic fascism, they stubbornly cling to crazy ideas about leaving people the fuck alone about their personal choices..

Clearly they are due for some serious smitin'.

[IDemo]

11. Irrelevant to the topic

There hasn't been a hurricane/typhoon or other threat of natural disaster to challenge the Dutch. However, there will be gulf storms this year and next, ad infinitum.

[Alcibiades]

13. Actually, it's not

Coastal areas built below sea level face similar problems. Maintaining the territorial integrity of the Netherlands against the encroachments of the sea is a never-ending battle for the Dutch. Even today, they are busy with their dykes:

"After the flood disaster in 1953, the Netherlands took drastic measures to protect the country against flooding. Dykes were raised and reinforced, and an ingenious barrier was constructed, namely the Oosterschelde storm-surge barrier in Zeeland, to prevent the sea from flooding during storms. However, the Netherlands also has to contend with the water that comes from swollen rivers flowing through the country. That is why, after the high water levels in 1993 and 1995, the Great Rivers Delta Plan was quickly initiated. For years the water had been kept at bay by the system of dykes. A new policy was developed, however, based on the fact that rivers have to be given space. Nevertheless, we have to continue raising the dykes, so this also required a new approach in the form of the flexible coast concept. Greater emphasis was also placed on water defenses as a means of managing water levels. Safety continues to be the top priority, but must not result in the destruction of the considerable cultural-historical and natural value of our river landscapes."

(Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works & Water Management)

Nonetheless, there was flooding in the Netherlands in November, 1998. If they have the situation fairly under control today, it is only because the Dutch have struggled with their flooding problem for hundreds of years. See

www.uni-hamburg.de/Wiss/FB/15/Sustainability/ccfloods.pdf

For a history of flooding in the Netherlands.

Screw Venice, too!

[bluedonkey]

19. Floods?

check it out.I remember them well when I was a child.Also broken dams on the North Sea in Germany.They didn't abandon their homes.The rebuilt the dams and their lifes.

[Inland]

10. Why, are the dutch going to pay for it, live there?

No, they aren't.

My guess is that the American citizens are going to pay for it, and only if anyone wants back.

My further guess would be that nobody is going to pay for it on the basis of a oneliner about the dutch.

So maybe he gets a say, just like you and me.

[Alcibiades]

2. I couldn't agree more

Yet we must recognize that all of our structures are temporary and flimsy, and that our settlements will need to be rebuilt from time to time.

There's no place that is immune from nature's wrath. I say, let them build it, let it be washed away, etc. Sort of like those Bhuddist monks' sand paintings.

On the other hand, thoase multimillion dollar homes on the coast--they should be banned.

[Jacobin]

3. Also, forget Los Angeles and San Francisco when the quake

hits.

I love New Orleans and it will be rebuilt.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Give the planet fifty more years of our insane oil addiction and denial

and it won't just be New Orleans that is underwater. Try Manhattan and most of Florida, to name a couple.

[cascadiance]

6. How about rebuilding it like Venice or something like that...

I'm not speaking out of pragmatic knowledge here, but perhaps there might be a way to rebuild it so that the level of the city is higher than sea level and *let* the water come through at a certain level to avoid having a *huge* amount of water come through the levies if another such storm were to come through. Still build up the levies even higher than they were before, but make it so that a "controlled" amount of water could be released at certain points to allow better drainage and not have the lake get so high that it would make it like a huge damn ready to burst. Maybe something like the Riverwalk in San Antonio or the like.

Whether or not to do something drastic like this will depend a lot on how much of the infrastructure is recoverable and how much it isn't. If it is fundamentally destroyed, it might be worth trying to rethink how to rebuild it back up. If it is not fundamentally destroyed, especially the historical parts, perhaps there might be some ways to isolate and protect those part of the cities in smaller sections than previously done to maintain the older architecture, but to allow the other places where there isn't as much historical architecture to bear the weight of newer architecture that will allow the water to flow through without as much damage.

[HadItUpToHere]

17. I was thinking along the same lines- canals & casinos

rebuilding it with at least part of it done up with venetian-type canals- mostly as a tourist draw, since tourism is such a big part of the economy...and i would tend to believe that they(along with mississppi) will be getting land-based casinos...(does NO already have casinos? if so, i wasn't aware of it).

[ButterflyBlood]

8. Galveston was rebuilt

It was the same situation there. New Orleans will be back.

[Inland]

12. Galveston isn't under sea level.

The massive effort to keep the river and the sea out by levees is unique. Pointing out other places that have been rebuilt just begs the question.

[markus]

9. ***

Never mind.

[Alcibiades]

14. Abandon the soggy graves of your ancestors!

1. Like it or not, we are defined in part by where we choose to live. A relocated New Orleans wouldn't be the same. The people of New Orleans have, as the OP points out, made innumerable contributions to our American culture, Jazz, for one thing. The city of New Orleans has contributed to the common wealth of America since we took it over--who are we now to withhold our aid when they need it?

2. There is a modern conceit that we can avoid all risk. Rest assured, this is a conceit only. We are all going to die, and all of our buildings are only temporary, no matter what precautions we take. The best we can do is to cope with the difficulties nature throws at us. Besides, rebuilding New Orleans isn't even the greatest source of death caused by our geographic choices. There were 42,443 automobile fatalities in 2001. That's like losing our total fatalities in the Iraq war every two weeks.

3. One of the legitimate functions of government is to intervene in times of disaster. We pay taxes in part to socialize the risk involved in living as we do, where we do. Granted, some risks are greater than others, but how do we really know? For example, when (not if, but when) the New Madrid fault goes, the entire middle part of the country will look a lot riskier than it does today.

[donheld]

15. Not today, maybe later

Lets clean this mess we have now up, then we can decided.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. One word: Oil

[bluedonkey]

18. Word of advice

don't come down here and say such things if you want to be able to walk away.
I read a few posts like yours and I'm ,frankly, pissed.
NO has been in the same spot for a long time and it will be here when I'm long gone.
I would appreciate if you keep your useless advice to yourself,we have enough to cope with as it is.We're still waiting for a count on the dead so we can mourn them.And then we will rebuilt!

[Daphne08]

20. New Orleans was founded in 1718.

Go away.

[Moderator]

21. Locking...

This is flamebait.