Should New Orleans be rebuilt in same location?

Merika · 09-07-2005, 11:53 AM

It's a hard call. I too live in a very swampy coastal area about 150 feet from the beach. We end up in weird places that we consider 'home'. Most of the time all is well...sometime it bites us in the a$$ regardless of where we may be. I am currently right smack dab in the middle of Ophelia's path.....so I do understand.

I was talking to an engineer with the Coast Guard. The best idea so far would be to keep the Bourbon Street and historical areas where they are. Perhaps even keep those neighborhoods on higher elevation where they are. However, the infrastructure (government/law enforcement/hospitals and the majority of the population rebuilt a little NW of current location. The hurricane itself wasn't really the main problem here...it was the levee situation. Spending billions just to get that up to par for a Cat 5 hurricane seems a wasted expense when so much other needs are more pertinent.

There is also a problem as to what to do with all the debris. Flooding it may be the only answer. It's an ecological nightmare....but it beats the hell out of hauling it out for years to some other location.

Rebuilding a whole city back on an area which is below sea level doesn't make sense.

Anyone else have an opinion?

darkangelism · 09-07-2005, 01:02 PM

it will be, but shouldnt be, i mean its below sea level on the ocean, what kind of an idiot built a city there in the first place,lol.

Merika · 09-08-2005, 12:27 AM

I guess when the French first got there...somehow it made sense to build a city in a HOLE! To make it worse...it's actually still sinking down.

matthewmurcia · 09-11-2005, 06:11 AM

definitely shoudln't rebuild it but that won't be acceptable to politicians and anybody with a bet-up-ad-go bring 'em on type attitude like Bush. So I agree with DA, they will do. At least parts of it. They should just find the nearest bit of high dry ground and build it there. We could start a name competition New-New Orelans or something

Merika · 11-13-2005, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthewmurcia

We could start a name competition New-New Orelans or something

New Orlantis.

Merika · 11-13-2005, 04:16 PM

Seriously, I was watching a special on TV about the severe loss of historic homes and buildings which were lost which are considered national monuments.

I suspect the levy should've been fixed decades ago.....but if a president, ANY president, had tried to go there with the millions and millions of dollars needed.....everyone would've had a cow. It's a great loss....but life goes on.

The people which the world is focusing on who lost their homes.....lived in homes which weren't even worthy of inhabitation. For those people.... they are definately better off in government housing elsewhere.

Luba · 11-13-2005, 05:27 PM

I say "not"

Merika · 11-13-2005, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luba

I say "not"

I could repeat the joke that only the French would've built an entire seaport in an area BELOW sea level.......but I won't. It's actually a major seaport due to the fact that the many goods are then barged up the Mississippi River to the north.

I'm not particularly fond of New Orleans....but many people are. There would be alot of heritage and culture lost if it weren't rebuilt to some extent. The truth is though.....unless the levy is rebuilt at a tax dollar rate no one wants to pay.....it's a waste of time. It's like leaving a bucket with 3 inches of sand out in the rain and wondering why it's not panning out.

sweetbilly · 02-01-2006, 11:15 PM

Actually, most people don't know this but New Orleans wasn't built below sea level. Because of petroleum extraction in the gulf of Mexico, New Orleans has subsided very slowly over the past 50 or so years to the point it's at now.

Personally, i don't think they should allow those people to rebulid in that area, because that area isn't going to stop subsiding for quite some time and over the next 100 or so years we expect it to subside another 30 feet or so. However, a lot of people have invested their lives in that area and i feel they deserve some type of recompense for their losses. After all that area did not start subsiding until the Petroleum co's started extracting oil.

It's common sence to understand when you extract oil from the subsurface the pressure holding up the sediment up drops. So the people should have known better than to build there but they were there before the exploration begun so they had a right to know what oil exploration was going to do to that area.

Duke · 02-02-2006, 12:41 AM

I think they should rename it to Waterworld, that would make Kevin Costner happy at least.

Merika · 02-02-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetbilly

Actually, most people don't know this but New Orleans wasn't built below sea level. Because of petroleum extraction in the gulf of Mexico, New Orleans has subsided very slowly over the past 50 or so years to the point it's at now.

Personally, i don't think they should allow those people to rebulid in that area, because that area isn't going to stop subsiding for quite some time and over the next 100 or so years we expect it to subside another 30 feet or so. However, a lot of people have invested their lives in that area and i feel they deserve some type of recompense for their losses. After all that area did not start subsiding until the Petroleum co's started extracting oil.

It's common sence to understand when you extract oil from the subsurface the pressure holding up the sediment up drops. So the people should have known better than to build there but they were there before the exploration begun so they had a right to know what oil exploration was going to do to that area.

Thanks for the info Billy. It always helps to have a geologist as a friend!!

I would think that the areas which need to be rebuilt are closer to the seaboard and was considered more of a slum area anyway. Most of those people have went on to find better housing and jobs elsewhere and say they don't wish to return to New Orleans. There was so much poverty and crime in that area....that much like the slums in any big city...people would move in a heartbeat if they had the funds. For a whole lot of people...it was a blessing.

I imagine there will be some selective high end rebuilding. I hear there is quite the real estate boom going on there.

Merika · 02-02-2006, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke

I think they should rename it to Waterworld, that would make Kevin Costner happy at least.

I really liked that movie. I wonder why it bombed so badly??? :?

RandomSkater · 02-02-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke

I think they should rename it to Waterworld, that would make Kevin Costner happy at least.

I was thinking something along the same lines...

They should breach those dam things that originally broke and then totally abandone the city.
Roving gangs can go there and fight over land, loot and plunder until ternity.

the only law will be that they can't shoot camera crews so they can send in some to tape the carnage and mayhem and then turn it into a tv reallity show.

Merika · 02-02-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandomSkater

They should breach those dam things

I thought you were cussing until I read it again! HAHA!

It's actually one of our largest ports....as well as the mouth of the Mississippi which barges tons of goods to the North. It's needed...but not with all the residents in the lower lying areas.