If San Francisco were hit by the "big one" would anyone be asking

[Saphire]

if we should rebuild?? I'm sick of people asking this question about N.O. as if it weren't "worth" it to rebuild. What if it happened to another large, more "wealthy" city? Would we rebuild YOUR city if it fell to a disaster, natural or otherwise?

[Warpy]

1. Yes, some would, especially on the landfill areas

and they'd be right to do so.

The parts on bedrock would likely suffer far less damage and be very attractive to rebuilders.

Face it, some places are just not conducive to human habitation, and some places are not conducive to expensive construction.

The landfill area should be a park, should be urban gardens, should be anything but housing and commercial construction.

[Tesha]

11. And some places won't be conducive to habitation in a few years.

> Face it, some places are just not conducive to human habitation

And some places won't be conducive to habitation in a few
years unless we evolve gills right quick.

NOLA is one of those places. You can rebuild it
now, but in a very few decades, it will be history,
an underwater history museum. So if you're going to
rebuild it, you'd better plan on getting your money's
worth from the rebuilding over a very few years.

And yes, I have compelete confidence that the
same questions would be asked about San Francisco.
And for many low-lying portions of The City, the
exact same answer would apply. So long North Beach,
Marina, Inner and Outer Sunset and Richmond, etc.

Tesha

[Orrex]

2. That depends

Would "rebuilding" San Francisco mean that all those carefully disbursed blacks would move back into town?

:sarcasm:

[azurnoir]

3. Only after the Fundies

were done with the "it's Gods wrath" thing.

[msongs]

4. the "loving" god's punishment of those sinners - $$$

think of all the $$ the american talibornagains could generate for their greedy selves if that happened!

Msongs
www.msongs.com/impeachbush.htm

[Ian David]

5. Re-build? Yes. But changes will have to be made...

Certain types of structures have no business in San Francisco or New Orleans.

You build to fit the environment.

That's what mankind supposedly learned during The Neolithic Revolution when we scratched our heads and thought, "Stay here... grow grain... drink beer... build house."

Somehow, around The Industrial Revolution, hubris outpaced common sense and we started building to suit our ego, not to fit the environment.

[TahitiNut]

6. I'd like to see the PEOPLE empowered, not 'central planning'

I think the question itself is wrongly framed. It's not about "us rebuilding New Orleans" (or any other city), it's about us standing by our neighbors and helping them become whole again. I'd far rather have a dialog on how we can offer direct economic assistance to individuals made homeless or subjected to catastrophic economic impacts - and let THEM choose whre to reestablish their homes. Cities develop infrastructures and governments as a result of settlement, not the other way around.

At the same time, I'm appalled by the cycle of rebuilding in areas subject to periodic destruction. I'd love to see a national ban on private building within 150 yards of any seashore or wetlands, with very tightly-controlled development of public facilities for shipping, boating, and recreation. Likewise, lakeshores and rivershores are overbuilt. Flood zones are not only too open to residential use, the building codes themselves are far too lax.

I adore San Francisco. It's my 2nd favorite city in the world. (Paris is my favorite.) But it's the PEOPLE of San Francisco that make it great - the buildings and infrastructure are secondary and only the result of an inheritance of the community efforts of PEOPLE.

I liked New Orleans (outside of the tacky French Quarter), particularly in the pedestrian, ethnic neighborhoods. Preservation Hall and Bar-B-Que ... absinthe and ribs ... PEOPLE. It's about the people.

[tandot]

7. Yes, they should ask that question.

I don't care if it is a rich neighborhood or a poor neighborhood.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/faultline/activezone/liquefaction.html

"Many buildings in the San Francisco Bay Area are built on landfill, sand, or mud that can liquefy. Liquefaction caused much of the damage during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. It has also been responsible for major destruction in other quakes, including Kobe, Japan, in 1995 and Mexico City in 1985."

In the Sacramento area, we have also a lot of urban development in flood plains, surrounded by old and failing levees:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/18/science/18conv.html

"Q. If you were making a bet, where would you say the next New Orleans will be?

A. I'd say the Sacramento area. The common denominator is concentrated urban development in the shadow of flooding and levees.
You have around 400,000 people at risk from flooding, and the number will grow in the next few years because of intense development.

The city's main problem is that it is situated between the American and the Sacramento Rivers and at the base of the 12,000 foot Sierra Nevada range. Both rivers are prone to flooding. Additionally, powerful storms come in from the Pacific, slam against the mountains and dump heavy precipitation that ends up very quickly in the rivers."


Sorry, but some areas are just not well suited for urban development.

[The2ndWheel]

8. They should ask

Ask why build a city here or there, how to build the city, what kind of building, etc. Obviously the answer up to this point has always been the bigger the better, and in whatever place we can imagine. That won't stop, since it wouldn't be American if it did, so why even ask this question of any city?

[stray cat]

9. Maybe the analogy should be NYC islands flooded

due to global warming and increased ocean levels. Do we then pump out the water and build levies around the island even though it is now below sea level or do we rebuild in an area that is not below sea level.

I think its a valid question for NO as to if it should be rebuilt in the exact arrangement as before. The protective coastal swamps and vegetation have been destroyed over time making it even more vulnerable to hurricanes than ever before.

[Burning Water]

10. If SF

got hit by the "big one", would the land still be there to rebuild on, or would it have slidden into the sea?

[Joe Fields]

12. It totally amazes me that people would even think of the question,

let alone ask it.