reply to post by jdub297
I feel I should clarify my personal position on the matter of where people choose to live.
The settlements which have grown up around rivers and coasts, and around other sources of natural resources (like geothermal heat, and the fertile
land which can spring up in the foothills of some volcanic regions), sprung up in these locations, largely because they offered one or another vital
component, which gave those locations advantages over others, as well as pitfalls.
As time went on, various methods were devised (in some places) to mitigate the worst effects of the downsides of the geographical positions chosen
for these settlements. In the cases of rivers and coasts, defenses and water management systems appeared over long periods, combined with building
methods which also reduced the threat to life and limb somewhat, and allowed people to continue to live and work even during flooding and so on.
However, modern building methods in coastal and riverside area, are not, in the main, any different than those methods used in other areas. Back in
times gone by, river and coastal properties were stilted, built on raised platforms. But these days, PURELY to save money, properties are slapped
together on a budget, and sold, purely based on location rather than quality of build or insurability, for vast sums of money.
Now, I am a person who has a love of the place he lives in. I have no false impressions about how much of a crap hole my town is, but I tell you
what, I promised to myself that I would not leave it until I had either improved it, or burned it down and salted the Earth, and I TOTALLY appreciate
anyone who finds themselves in that situation. The truth is that many people simply cannot afford to move away from where they live. Others move to an
area for work, and have no local knowledge and no particular research ability, and so are shocked to see how close the waters come to their front
doors, or worse, how close the water comes to the living room ceiling.
I believe that settlements which have sprung up near shores or riversides, ought not be abandoned. A people SHOULD love their land, their homes,
their history and heritage enough to fight for it. That fight ought to involve forcing governments and councils, and building contractors, to agree
government approved, and standardised design plans for the needs of the individual landscape involved. Uprooting an entire town, re-locating entire
infrastructural systems, moving hospitals and doctors surgeries, police stations, fire houses, homes and families, these are not acceptable solutions,
nor in any way practical. That would be neither appropriate for the needs of communities, nor cost effective, as, if what we are told is true, we can
expect to see MASSIVE changes in coastal and river landscapes over the next hundred years.
A much better idea, would be to future proof at risk communities, by bringing a combination of traditional thinking, and modern technology to the
table in dealing with these matters. The idea of constantly replacing a flooded building with another one which will flood again, is indeed, as you
say, idiotic. However, a building CAN be built to withstand floods, winds, and a huge number of other disasters, and ESPECIALLY so, in regions which
are prone to one or another, because they provide their very own test bed. If it can be done (and it used to be, so we ought to be able to do it now,
and more solidly too!) then in this particular instance, it damned well ought to be.