Should New Orleans be rebuilt?

Those yellow trucks are DHL delivery vans! But they could be put to use.

The major economic areas of the city including the Quarter is mostly above water. The majority of flooded areas are homes, commercial, parks and some industrial complexes. If the houses can't be salvaged then there is a way to raise the land and rebuild at least to the height of the CBD.
The Mississippi is loaded with silt. Using the existing canal levees flood these areas with river water from 1 side and pump the silt free water run off from the other side. This silt packs in real well and builds up in a few weeks to months. This technique was used to build I10, I310 and a number of roads through swamps in Lousisana since as early as the 1950s. This is still done to provide landfill and residential use today by building pits and then trucking the sand to customers.

What has amazed me is that the army did not seal the 2 canals (17th and London Ave) right away. It would have blocked 2 pumping stations but the other 4 could be lowering the water now. They could have airliftec huge pumps from Avondale to add to the pump capacity. Finally today Sept.2 I did see some progress on the canals but still it's slow going. At least they now have heavy equipment in place.

Don't believe too much of what the national news is saying and showing. The large area of water rolling over a levee near this lift bridge is in a place near Chalmette, LA. That's a bad situation also but it's not what caused NOLA to flood. Chalmette is on the eastern side. The city flooded from the north and northwest. This is evident in the Sat photo posted on the web where we saw those yellow trucks.

Yes, Repair the Big Easy. Nothing like sipping coffee and getting fat on begnettes. 25% of the nations coffee arrives at that port. Also bananas and other fruit arrive there also. The wherehouses are believed to be intact and still loaded with some cargo. Folgers, Community and several other coffees are roasted there. Unfortunately at least one of the coffee roasters is under water near the Dome. I hope to one day be able to drive through the city in the morning just to smell the coffee roasting. Then arrive at Cafe DuMonde and sip coffee and eat some of those begnettes pronounced (Ben-Yeas).

There is no doubt the port, rail lines, and oil industry will be rebuilt.
The Old city above sea level will also likely survive. But the rest?

Originally posted by CSRules
Should NO be rebuilt? Depends...What about taking all the destruction from the hurricane, in LA, MS,and AL and using it as landfill to bring NO above sea level. Just a thought. Not only does it help rebuild NO, but gives a place to dump all the debris.

Yup... (NO) it acted as a ramp because it was so low, it helped the cane move up the US.... I would never live there though....

Rebuild New Orleans? OF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARE YOU ALL CRAZY????????????????????

New Orleans is one of America's strangest, oldest, and most historically fascinating cities! The culture there is totally unique to NO! No other city like it in the US or world! The historical signifigance of the city alone makes it a national treasure: it was once a free city for blacks escaping slavery. We defeated the British in the War of 1812 at the Battle of New Orleans. Its the birthplace of Jazz. The American Voodoo capital. Cajun country!

Abandoning New orleans simply because it took some devastating blows is like abandoning New York City simply because its a terrorist attack. America is a land prone to natural disaster. There is no where to live in this country where you wont get hit.

And remember, New orleans has survived over 200 years of hurricanes fine, why should this one be the city's death knell?

Rebuild the Big Easy, with better planning and protection this time, instead of throwing in the friggin towel.

Originally posted by Frosty
What does New ORleans have that's worthy of billions to rebuild the city? Nothing really. There is Mardi Gras, jazz and gumbo but not much else. NASA, petrolplants and everyone else will not be around anytime after the water recedes, way too expensive.

Right on Skadi_the_Evil_Elf!!!

First of all, NOLA is the biggest port in the United States. It controls much more than just oil coming into this country.

Where do you think the supertankers bringing foreign oil to us should go? The port has to be close to the Gulf to support these mammoth ships. And then you need workers to support these operations. How far should they commute for their job?

Of course NOLA needs to rebuilt. It might never be as large as before and many things need to be changed.

What about the families that have never been outside of NOLA? All their family, friends, jobs, and life is NOLA. Is it fair to tell them you have no rights to live there anymore, go find a new city?

Why is it okay to use federal money to assist New York after 9/11 but not NOLA??? Surely everyone understands NY continues to be a target for terrorists. But no one is asking for NY to be evacuated.

If every city that has used federal money to recover from natural disaster, and was told not to rebuild, what would be left of the United States???

Generations before us have seen and done bigger challenges than this. Now it is our turn to build NOLA better. But everyone is talking about quitting before a plan is even developed. No wonder our government is a disgrace, our people are too.

P.S. I live in South Georgia and have visited NOLA once. No friends or relatives there. But why should NOLA be treated any different than any other city that has had a natural disaster???

Should you pour concrete foundations on a river delta?

No

Should you pave roads on a river delta?

No

Should you store petrochemicals on a river delta?

No

Should you levee rivers?

No

Should you dredge rivers?

No

Should you rebuild New Orleans?

Sure... as a farm based community that gratefully accepts flood waters bringing in fertile soil.


Sri Oracle

New Orleans suffers from two major vulnerabilities. One is from the forces of nature. The other is from a lack of genuine character. There once was a time when New Orleans was a great melting pot of people and cultures that blended into an almost magical uber-culture with a unique language, cuisine and music. In a bland environment, New Orleans stood out as an exotic city filled with mystery and excitement.

Those days are gone, but the business community and the city government have maintained a facade for a couple of generations now in the interest of tourism while what was once a melting pot became a cesspool.

As someone noted, disasters like this befall many communities, even if this one makes most pale in comparison. What is so very different in this case is the disaster did not bring a community together in a valiant concerted effort to prevail, as we so gratefully observed on 9/11/2001 in Manhattan.

What we saw was city overcome far more by chaos, violence, and anarchy than by wind or water. New Orleans suffered such a disaster in 1965, but there was no descent into an anomic man-made hell and obscene commentary by the city leaders.

Who wonders why the responses were so different to such similar tragedies just forty years apart?

[edit on 2005/9/4 by GradyPhilpott]

Wow what a great thread!
I really liked the one about the situation being due to public policy in the first place.

Personally I think the issue will lie with the Insurers. Who would insure homes / businesses / /infrastructure now knowing that another 10 billion bill could happen with the next storm.

Also, I read that the problem with new Orleans at present is "what are we going to do with all the water?"

They can't pump it back where it came from as its polluted, and full of debris. Maybe they should leave it there and create a New Orleans lake

Who will build there now? Would YOU risk your family there, especially if you have just lost everything.
Who will insure it?
Who will return?
and Who wants to pay for it?
10 Billion now is a heap of money the country could use elsewhere.

Finally if they do move the city, what will they call it? "New New Orleans? "
"Another New Orleans?"

[edit on 4-9-2005 by Netchicken]

Originally posted by Netchicken
Who will build there now? Would YOU risk your family there, especially if you have just lost everything.
Who will insure it?
Who will return?
and Who wants to pay for it?

People will go back there (Not all but my bet is most) because it is home. If the SF Bay Area was hit by a huge quake and my family was luck enough to survive, would I go back? Yes I would because it is home. The concept of home and the connection to it is not unique to the US but is almost a universal trait across the world. Any more than a Londoner would pack it up and go or any other country. Dresden, Hiroshima or Bopahl is yet another example

Fred there are interweaving factors that will answer my retorical questions.

Sure the port is important, but if you were a major business and had the chance to relocate would you return?

If you want to rebuild your house and it was on flood prone land would you easily get insurance, would you be able to afford it if you could?

This is not just a natural disaster like a storm, or a war, this is the realization that you are living in a giant puddle, just awaiting the next major storm to fill it.

If the city is closed off for 9 months, thats a heck of a long time to rebuild your life elsewhere.

Originally posted by Qwas
What about the families that have never been outside of NOLA? All their family, friends, jobs, and life is NOLA. Is it fair to tell them you have no rights to live there anymore, go find a new city?

They will still have there family and friends...but there job is gone and there life will change, from what i've seen on the news it sounds like a large majority are done with it.

Why is it okay to use federal money to assist New York after 9/11 but not NOLA??? Surely everyone understands NY continues to be a target for terrorists. But no one is asking for NY to be evacuated.

You simply cannot compare to VERY different events. It doesn't matter where a terrorist strikes...it will get rebuilt. Your trying to compare a natural disaster that left a million homeless, to an act of war that took jobs.

Generations before us have seen and done bigger challenges than this. Now it is our turn to build NOLA better. But everyone is talking about quitting before a plan is even developed. No wonder our government is a disgrace, our people are too.

The thing your forgetting is that its below sea level, the only thing that kept it from being under water was the manmade levees. If a big quake hits cali, then buildings will fall from the shaking...but within the same day there will be recuers in there to help. NO took so long because its underwater, thats why the news covered it much more then Louisiana & Mississippi. Parts of them were wiped out as well, but no one will question rebuilding there. NO's is under such a heated debate because its a town in a bathtub...and theres nothing left of it...all the houses roofs that you saw are all junk from being that wet, that long. and the larger building would need a massive overhual to get them up to par...it would be Extremely Expensive...If the city was above sea level...you wouldn't hear a fraction of the current debates raging over this topic.

I'm sure that others are already saying this or already have but, it's not really relevant to point to the last 200 years as proof that NO should be rebuilt because they have survived in the past.

One of the main problems is basically erosion from above and below - over the last 200 years (well, especially the last 50) that whole area has been just plain disappearing! From the surface, natural erosion is "erasing" about an acre every 33 minutes (according to Natural Geographic sources). That's been going on for thousands of years but it was always replenished by the sediment from the Mississippi River - until we, as in "modern man", put a stop to it in the name of progress.

From below, we're removing the oil and gas that the land has been "floating" on. Of course, that is an overly simplistic way of describing it but, you get the idea. When you take stuff out from under other stuff, the stuff on the top sinks, right?

So, my point is that we have "used up" the area around New Orleans and it is no longer viable as a location for a city.

Originally posted by TruthCanHurt
Perhaps restoring New Orleans to its original state is not such a good idea?

I had to leave the home and area I had known for 28 years and start over somewhere else because of a disaster that was not my fault. Billions could be pumped into rebuilding it and the same thing could happen all over again. It should not be rebuilt.

I agree, they should rebuild, but they could try to do it above the level of the rivers around it, or just use it as farmland, but that will be difficult with all the concrete.

They need to put above sea level and forget about rebuilding.

I think the city should be rebuild, but not in the current location. It should be built at a safer area. It is a bad idea it was built in that area in the first place.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
And remember, New orleans has survived over 200 years of hurricanes fine, why should this one be the city's death knell?

Yea, but 200 years ago New Orleans was not the spreading metropolis it
is/was today. It has also been sinking, the ocean levels are rising, and
climate change is telling us there will be more frequent storms like this
one.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Rebuild the Big Easy, with better planning and protection this time, instead of throwing in the friggin towel.

I'm sure something will be rebuilt. It will be a real shame if careful urban
planning is not implemented this time around. Cities around the US seem
to "just happen" without any foresight for the future.

North of Atlanta it is next to impossible to travel east-west. Your only
choices are south-east or north-west. The roads are all based around
old horse trails. In this day and age of satellite imaging and computers
you would think cities would be evolving along lines of efficiency. Instead
we have gridlock everywhere. I just hope, since we have the chance to
build New Orleans over again we do it right for once.

What is the likelihood they are just going to patch the levy, suck the
city dry, and then let the masses return to their dirty and moldy houses
and apartments.

"Should new Orleans be rebuilt?", it looks like a lot of people are now
asking this question.


Democrat leaders demand New Orleans be rebuilt
Yahoo News


Detroit Free Press
"If you threw a dart at a U.S. map 999 times, you could not hit a worse spot to locate a metropolis."
FUTURE OF NEW ORLEANS


GOPUSA
"In an interview with the Daily Herald published on Thursday, Hastert said, "It doesn't make sense to me" to spend billions of federal dollars on rebuilding a city that remains vulnerable to disaster."
House Speaker Says 'Safety First'


BuzzMachine
"Does it make sense to rebuild homes and offices in a place that can be destroyed all too easily, putting thousands of lives at risk?"
Should New Orleans be Rebuilt


Seems like almost no one thinks it a good idea to just rebuild what was there
before. Again, Urban Planning will be the key to a successful resurrection
of the city.

Just read this article. Say hello to the Louisiana Recovery Corporation.

www.nytimes.com...

Sounds like another corporate tentacle around the throat of this fading republic. But maybe that's just because I'm cynical and can't trust politicians to do what's best for 95% of their constituents, if the other 5% happen to be wealthy and influential.

If New Orleans isnt rebuild where are the former residences of New Orleans going to be relocated?
What state is going to want to take a large number of poor people?
At the very least the rubble needs to be cleared for hygiene reasons.
Are the flood waters preventing bulldozers from clearing the area?
Or is there a shortage of equpiment in a large area?