Let the city go?

[CynicalGabe]

The last news i heard said the 80% of the city was under water because of the failed levees.

My opinion is that they should let the city go. Relocate everyone and let mother nature retake the wetlands and rebuild the Mississippi river delta. Its been screwed up enough by us, and look what happened. It should be obvious to everyone by now that we cannot have a long-term city in this location. This is just inevitably going to happen again.

Abandoning the city is unlikely, yes, but thats what I'd prefer to see happen. It'd be a shitload cheaper for taxpayers as well. What say you?

[Gangster Octopus]

What about all the gas and oil pipelines?

[Jonathan Chance]

True enough, I suppose. But there's a LOT of energy infrastructure that would need to be set up in Houston or Mobile or suchlike.

Plus, what if it closed on the Mississippi from the Gulf of Mexico? That's kind of important, isn't it?

[msmith537]

Abandoning the city is unlikely, yes, but thats what I'd prefer to see happen. It'd be a shitload cheaper for taxpayers as well. What say you?


I say you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Missy2U]

I say you have no idea what you are talking about.

Could you please expand on that a little? The reason I'm asking is because someone here at my work made the same statement (or a very similar one) and I'd be interested in reading your points (especially because I kind of agree with you but I'm not really sure WHY if that makes any sense).

[elmwood]

Abandoning the city is unlikely, yes, but thats what I'd prefer to see happen. It'd be a shitload cheaper for taxpayers as well. What say you?

Eventually, though, whether because of global warming or just natural forces, the cost of maintaining New Orleans at its current location is going to outweigh the benefits. It really isn't a sustainable location for a city.

Even though I'm a planner, and I love cities, I sometimes question why we spend so much effort to maintain cities that, because of environmental issues or a changing economy, are really no longer viable? Take my hometown, Buffalo, which recieves hundreds of millions of dollars in federal and state aid every year, yet it's still struggling, still in economic decline. The reasons for having a city in that location -- a break in bulk point between the location of raw materials required for certain types of heavy industry and the market for the resulting products -- is now moot. The only reason the city is still there is because it always has been there; it's "home" to a million people. Aside from sentimental reasons such as family, chicken wings, history or architecture, its existence can no longer be justified.

A century ago, if a city lost its reason for existing -- the gold was extracted, the price of silver dropped -- it was abandoned. Would we all be better off if the Buffalos and Youngstowns of the country were just abandoned? Their architectural treasures can be preserved and made a part of a national park, or rebuilt elsewhere; their institutions of higher learning, library collections, culutre and art can be relocated to more prosperous cities; their people and businesses can move away like they have been for the past 50 years. Why not just pack it in, follow many past members of the Buffalo diaspora, and rebuild the place outside of Charlotte, North Carolina? What difference does it matter that Buffalo is in New York or North Carolina? Same thing with New Orleans; should it be moved en masse to a more sustainable, viable location?

[Johnny L.A.]

I think it would be a shame to abandon the city. New Orleans is my favourite city, after all. Lafitte's Blacksmith Shop was built sometime before 1772. There's a lot of great architecture there. Yes, the projects to protect the city that have been undertaken in the last hundred years or so have had the effect of increasing the likelihood of what has happened happening. But if nothing else, I think the French Quarter should be preserved and protected.

[Fionn]

If New Orleans is abandoned, where will hundreds upon hundreds of people get drunk and flash crowds for plastic beads every February?

[BurnMeUp]

If New Orleans is abandoned, where will hundreds upon hundreds of people get drunk and flash crowds for plastic beads every February?
I'd like to offer my back yard as a suitable substitute.

[Anaamika]

I say you have no idea what you are talking about.
I second the request for more information. Why do we need to keep the city alive? Like elmwood, I'm a New Yorker and have often wondered the same thing about Buffalo.

[QuickSilver]

If New Orleans is abandoned, where will hundreds upon hundreds of people get drunk and flash crowds for plastic beads every February?

D.C. could stand with a good measure of that kind of life and character.

Anybody else have the Tragically Hip song going through their head:

"Bourbon blues on the street loose and complete
Under skies all smoky blue-green
I can Forksake the dixie dead shake
So we dance the sidewalk clean
My memory is muddy what's this river I'm in
New Orleans is sinking and I don't want to swim"

[danceswithcats]

Similar logic could be applied to various situations. Why continue to rebuild California? Another earthquake will destroy it. Why rebuild across the midwest? Tornados will return to wreak havoc before long. Why attempt to replenish eroded beaches along the Atlantic coast? Why try to extinguish fires that destroy housing built along the wildland urban interface?

Because it has been and will continue to be one of mankind's goals to eke out an existence on this orb despite the actions of Mother Nature to kill us all off. ;)

[Shagnasty]

I say you don't know what the fuck you are talking about either. Besides the oil industry, New Orleans is the largest port in the nation and the third largest in the world. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/new-orleans.htm). You cannot replace that even by moving up river. The Mississippi River at New Orleans can handle almost all ocean going ships. That is not the case even as far upriver as Baton Rouge where the river is less wide and deep.

In short, you have a city that is absolutely vital as a port supporting the whole nation and especially the interior. You have a city that is extremely important to the oil industry. And, on a softer scale, you have a city that is culturally and historically unique and is one of the major tourist destinations in the country.

It is possible to make New Orleans less prone to these kinds of risks. The Army Corps of Engineers has been studying the problem for years. Now is the time when people will think seriously about what needs to be done and what we need to do it.

Protecting the entire city of New Orleans may only cost about as much as Boston's Big Dig and all that did was give us a few stupid tunnels to drive in.

[plnnr]

"Letting New Orleans go" isn't like letting Dust Flat, CA go once the gold gave out.

New Orleans is home to half a million people. That's home, folks. You people were screaming bloody murder not two months ago when New London acquired the homes of a whole lot fewer using eminent domain. A foolish consistency may be the hob-goblin of little minds - but at least it's consisten. "We can't let the city use eminent domain to acquire the home of these poor people, but we'll just let the Mississippi River reclaim New Orleans." Makes perfect sense.

New Orleans is an economic engine. It is one of the busiest ports in the world. Aside from the infrastructure value, you've got the value of the jobs created. Every stevedore, crane operator, and tug captain spends his money elsewhere. That keeps other people employed.

New Orleans, the city itself, has value. That's real estate we're talking about. Who is going to compensate the property owners for the value of their property (land, buildings, infrastructure, inventories, etc. etc. etc.)? The US Government? Please don't decry the size and cost of gov't if you're looking to the Feds for help on this one.

I'd suggest you read Jane Jacob's Life and Death of American Cities . That'll shed some light on how and why cities are created, thrive, and change. I don't believe that anyone has every just walked away from something like New Orleans.

[Miller]

Why? Because fuck Mother Nature, that's why. I'm not about to let that bitch push me around.

[Anaamika]

I say you don't know what the fuck you are talking about either.
I just wanted to say I at least, admit I have no idea what the fuck I am talking about, and thank you everyone for explaining! :)

[Eve]

My opinion is that they should let the city go.

Have you ever been to New Orleans? My best friend lives and works there (he's okay, last I heard), and New Orleans is one of my favorite cities--there's really nothing else like it in the U.S., in terms of architecture, history, ambiance. It would be like losing the Library at Alexandria, or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. We should be doing everything we can to save and protect such treasures.

Unfortunately, it being New Orleans, they'll never actually get off their asses and do anything about it . . .

[Push You Down]

So if we're keeping N'awlens, can we still ditch Buffalo?

[Shagnasty]

Unfortunately, it being New Orleans, they'll never actually get off their asses and do anything about it . . .

That may be true if it were only New Orleanians that were left to figure out a way to protect the city (it is hard to read engineering diagrams while you are bloto and naked women keep distracting you).

However, as I pointed out above, New Orleans has too much strategic value nationally and will have to be saved at any cost. The Army Corps of Engineers has already studied the problem and knows what needs to be done. It will take federal assistance but the city will be rebuilt and shored up for when this happens again.

Mark my words, that is what is going to happen.

[elmwood]

Similar logic could be applied to various situations. Why continue to rebuild California? Another earthquake will destroy it. Why rebuild across the midwest? Tornados will return to wreak havoc before long.

But ... what is the cost of rebuilding those places, compared to the benefit those places bring to the economy and culture? California has an economy that is larger than many European industrialized nations, and the cost of earthquake repairs is probably far less than the contributions LA or San Francisco make to the economy, not to mention the culture as a while. Besides, people want to live there for various reasons; jobs, weather, and so on.

Now, let's say an R7 or R8 earthquake hits Buffalo. Here's a city with a minimal contribution to the national economy. It already struggles to keep the businesses, institutions and residents it already has. Very few people move there unless they have a job offer, and those that stay do so mainly because of inertia - it's where their family and friends are. If you spend billions to rebuild it, the city will still hemorrhage businesses and people; the push forces like high upstate New York taxes and crappy upstate New York weather haven't changed.

Let's say, hypothetically, North America was devoid of humans until now, and is just starting to be settled by 21st century Europeans. because of air conditioning, cheap transportation and other advances in technology, the application of classic geographic thoery regarding city location (break in bulk points and fall lines) is far less of a factor than it was in the 1800s. Would a city be established in a sunny valley with a Mederterrainian climate next to the Pacific Ocean, despite the threat of earthquakes? How about the cloudy, cold area where Lake Erie is channeled into a strait connecting it with Lake Ontario? What about a swamp near the Gulf of Mexico?

[Zebra]

It's the mouth of the Mississippi river. There has to be a port city there.

Relocating a city is much harder than what The Simpsons has lead you to believe and it would be terribly expensive to do and expensive in the loss of future earnings from the abandoned city.

[Eve]

Relocating a city is much harder than what The Simpsons has lead you to believe.

You mean . . . we can't just put New Orleans on a big dolly and roll it up to somewhere near Minneapolis?

[DMark]

I suppose now is as good a time as any to figure out a way to fix the problems we are going to be stuck with following years of environmental neglect and abuse by the current political regime.

It will be interesting to see what can be done to save New Orleans, as the same thing will probably have to be done to save New York City and a few others on the coast as the Arctic slowly melts and the oceans rise.

[Cat Whisperer]

Could New Orleans and area use any of the Dutch technology that they use in their fight in keeping storm surges and such from wiping them clean? I recently saw a show on the big "storm doors" they have on one of their larger channels - very cool.

[Rysdad]

New Orleans is the largest port in the nation and the third largest in the world. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/new-orleans.htm)

Maybe the question should be: Should it remain the largest port?

Is there another city along the gulf coast with adequate infrastructure (or suitable building area) that would be more "hurricane resistant"? Is there such a thing?Would it be feasible to build a pipeline offshore to pump petroleum inshore to a high enough altitude? What about other type of cargo? Would it be cost effective to basically build a h-u-g-e berm and build a shipping city on top of that? And then, would it need a canal to the Mississippi?

I dunno.

The city of New Orleans istelf might be a lost cause. Personally, I don't consider architecture alone to be enough of a determining factor when deciding to spend billions of dollars in order to prop up an alcohol-based economy. (I'm speaking of the city itself--not the shipping facilities.)

I've been to conventions in Nawlins. They're enjoyable, and the French Quarter is fun for a night or two, but come on, getting drunk ain't rocket science.

The shipping and refining will probably have to stay, but the Crescent City itself is doomed. Water will always seek its own level, and Lake Pontchartrain and Big Muddy are suqeezing each side pretty hard.

[rpinrd]

I think that one difference between the beaches, etc. and Buffalo is that the beaches are (for lack of a better phrase) self-sustainable, whether because there are jobs in that area, or because they are so beautiful to live in that people are willing to accept the risks to continue living there. For example, even if we stopped fighting the forest fires, people would continue to build there because some people like to live next to nature. Conversely, if the government stopped pouring money into Buffalo, would people continue to live there? As elmwood said, people are leaving Buffalo (Rochester, Hartford, Gary, Syracuse - name your Rust-Belt City of choice) and very few people are moving in. Regardless of how much money the government pumps in, how many more generations will it take before the city just dies out on its own? Before real estate can't be sold regardless of the price, before even the Wal-Mart can't make it's sales numbers and closes?

Having grown up in nearby Rochester, an area with similar economic troubles, although perhaps not as severe, I can say that, although I loved the area, there was no economic future for me there. So I left and now live in Dallas.

So the question is: is New Orleans more like California, or more like Buffalo? I happen to think that it is more like California in that people want to go there, and because of the tourism and oil/chemical industry, it is economically viable. The next question is: even though it is more like California, how much are we willing to spend? Are we willing to encase the entire city in a plastic bubble and let it bob out in the Gulf?

Crap. On preview, I see that I'm repeating a lot of elmwood's second post. I still say that the decision to abandon an economically dead place like Buffalo is a separate discussion from what should be done with NO.

[CynicalGabe]

If New Orleans is abandoned, where will hundreds upon hundreds of people get drunk and flash crowds for plastic beads every February?

Cancun.

Could New Orleans and area use any of the Dutch technology that they use in their fight in keeping storm surges and such from wiping them clean? I recently saw a show on the big "storm doors" they have on one of their larger channels - very cool.

The Dutch don't often get hit by Category 4 &5 hurricanes.

Relocating a city is much harder than what The Simpsons has lead you to believe and it would be terribly expensive to do and expensive in the loss of future earnings from the abandoned city.

1. There is not much of a city left to relocate. Just pay to set the populace up in housing in other cities in the region. I think this would be cheaper than rebuilding all of those homes and businesses.

2. Much of any future earnings are offset by the cost of reconstruction, as well as the fact that this will happen again.

However, as I pointed out above, New Orleans has too much strategic value nationally and will have to be saved at any cost. The Army Corps of Engineers has already studied the problem and knows what needs to be done. It will take federal assistance but the city will be rebuilt and shored up for when this happens again.

Mark my words, that is what is going to happen.

Yes, so why bother rebuilding it?

in terms of architecture, history, ambiance. It would be like losing the Library at Alexandria, or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. We should be doing everything we can to save and protect such treasures.
If much of those treasures have been destroyed, what is left?


I do not think it is worth spending massive amounts of taxpayer money to bail water out of this sinking ship. As far as compensating people for their losses, the Fed. government could offer to pay to relocate people but not to rebuild in the specified areas. The government isn't taking anyone's land, just refusing to pay to build homes and businesses in a doomed area.

[Shagnasty]

Maybe the question should be: Should it remain the largest port?

Is there another city along the gulf coast with adequate infrastructure (or suitable building area) that would be more "hurricane resistant"? Is there such a thing?Would it be feasible to build a pipeline offshore to pump petroleum inshore to a high enough altitude? What about other type of cargo? Would it be cost effective to basically build a h-u-g-e berm and build a shipping city on top of that? And then, would it need a canal to the Mississippi?

There is no city on the Gulf Coast that has good protection against a Cat 4 or larger hurricane. What you are proposing is crazy expensive and in most cases, just plain crazy. As stated above, there needs to be a port at the mouth of the Mississippi river. The costs to rebuild and protect the city more are trivial compared to relocating all industry and 1.5 million people.

Direct hits to New Orleans don't come all that often. It has existed for almost 300 years with only a few major storm problems. It is a gambling game but one that we have to participate in.

[mks57]

It's the mouth of the Mississippi river. There has to be a port city there.


For how long?

From what I've read (John McPhee's The Control of Nature), the Mississippi wants to switch to the Atchafalaya river as its outlet to the Gulf. The only thing that has stopped it is the Corp of Engineers, and there are questions about how long they will be able to preserve the status quo.

[plnnr]

In 1906 San Francisco was practically wiped out. Gone. It has risen from the ashes of that disaster to become home to the city we know today. It can happen.

[Hung Mung]

A similar thing happened to Galveston, TX in 1900. It was a bustling port town of 37,000 people and one of the first cities in Texas to have electricity, telephones and such. In fact, it was the largest city in Texas at the time. Then they got nailed by a massive hurricane that leveled the whole town. A 15-16 foot storm surge flooded the town and winds are estimated to have been around 130/140 mph. About 6,000 people died in Galeveston alone, thousands more died inland. The storm caused about $30 million in damage (about $700 million by today's dollar).

After the storm they built a seawall seven miles long and seventeen feet high (I think it's 10 miles long now, and the original engineers goofed and made it a foot and half too short). They also raised the level of the entire city, including sewer and gas lines, by as much as 11 feet in some places. It took a long time for the city to recover. Houston may not have become the city it is today if it weren't for the devastation of Galveston.

But if they wanted to make New Orleans a viable port in the long run, they'll have to do about the same thing. They'll have to jack up the city and build a seawall. They'll have to raise the infrastructure and utilities.

Or they can periodically deal with billions of dollars in damage and thousands of deaths. Who knows.

[msmith537]

Could you please expand on that a little? The reason I'm asking is because someone here at my work made the same statement (or a very similar one) and I'd be interested in reading your points (especially because I kind of agree with you but I'm not really sure WHY if that makes any sense).


In that case, your coworker doesn't know what they are talking about.

In any event, most of the major points have been covered. But to summarize, New Orleans as a city has a certain strategic, economic and historical value in it's current location. Category 5 hurricanes destroying the city are a relatively rare event. The benefit of keeping NO where it is and making engineering improvements to protect it outweight the cost of moving it.

And where would you move it to? Just about every location in the country is exposed to some sort of risk.

[Rysdad]

What you are proposing is crazy expensive and in most cases, just plain crazy..

Not so.

Pipelines are a feasible alternative. See California, f'rinstance. Tankers pull up and offload at sea. See also Alaska. There's a big one there. Built in probaby less ideal circunstamces.

Building a berm isn't impossible, either. Airports exist in Hong Kong and Tokyo where either there was nothing there to begin with, or a rocky, peaked island existed.

Actually, an alternative might be to build a new refinery right where the city used to be. At least then, if there's an oil spill, it's contained by the levees.

Okay, that last line was sarcasm, but in truth, I believe there are better places to build.

The Corps of Engineers could maintain a shipping channel far enough upriver so as to remain above the highest reasonably-expected storm surge and yet maintain a port on the Mississippi.

If you want to maintain the French Quarter, fine. Just impose a tax on bars, restaurants, taxis and hotels. Probably pay for a flood wall itself after a Mardi Gras or two (once it's operable again).

Would I say the same about Biloxi, Galveston, Tampa, or other Gulf Cities? Probably not, because they don't exist in a ditch. At least they're starting at sea level. The water come in, then later flows out.

Not the case in New Orleans.

[The Great Sun Jester]

"We can't let the city use eminent domain to acquire the home of these poor people, but we'll just let the Mississippi River reclaim New Orleans." Makes perfect sense.
[ Les Nessman ] "Every day the Mississippi river dumps18 milion tons of silt into the Gulf of Mexico. How much longer will we alow this to continue! ?" [ /Les Nessman ]

There's a difference. People are the engines of change in New London, and as such they (arguably) have a conscience and can alter their actions to the benefit of all (naive statement); natural phenomena happen regardless of our desires. You gotta do better than that.

Insurance guy is looking at this picture and wondering: if so much of the city will need bulldozing before it can be rebuilt, why rebuild it just there? We could eminent domain a few hundred people the hell outta the bayous further inland and rebuild the bulk of the commercial interests there, and run high-speed freight/commuter trains to the ultramodern docks down at the mouth of the river.

It's a nice city, sure. But it got blasted. floodwaters are doing damage to the foundations of structures already 100 years old--I'm guessing that most of the old & beautiful architecture has already been rendered uninhabitable or will be shortly, and can't be repaired.

[Jackknifed Juggernaut]

The benefit of keeping NO where it is and making engineering improvements to protect it outweight the cost of moving it.

While you might be correct, I can't see how this is obvious. Who's done the analysis? It looks like the city is pretty much destroyed anyway. If you have to rebuild a city almost from scratch in a location where it is still prone to hurricanes and flooding OR build a city somewhere else that is not as prone OR just let people and businesses migrate elsewhere naturally, it seems that rebuilding NO is the worst of the options.

[Eve]

Personally, I don't consider architecture alone to be enough of a determining factor when deciding to spend billions of dollars in order to prop up an alcohol-based economy. (I'm speaking of the city itself--not the shipping facilities.)

I've been to conventions in Nawlins. They're enjoyable, and the French Quarter is fun for a night or two, but come on, getting drunk ain't rocket science.

Yeah. A tourist who shows up at a couple of conventions to party knows a lot about the city. Alcohol-based economy my ass, Mr. Conventioneer. You do know that hundreds of thousands of people live, work and go to school in New Orleans? That it has stores and churches and jazz clubs and Little Leagues and historical societies and museums and libraries just like any other biggish city? My best friend is the manager of a Williams-Sonoma, which, last I heard, was not an "alcohol-based" business.

[Ethilrist]

In 1906 San Francisco was practically wiped out. Gone. It has risen from the ashes of that disaster to become home to the city we know today. It can happen.
Not quite the same case, here. If the SF Peninsula had sunk in 1906 so that the city was under 10 feet of water, and they rebuilt it anyway, you'd have something.

[plnnr]

Not quite the same case, here. If the SF Peninsula had sunk in 1906 so that the city was under 10 feet of water, and they rebuilt it anyway, you'd have something.

I'm guessing that the people who rebuilt San Francisco recognized that there was a fault line nearby and that the possibility of another catastrophe was very real. I don't see the difference. The threat was there even after it was reconstructed.

[Batsinma Belfry]

It saddens me that so many people only think of New Orleans as a party town.

[Jackknifed Juggernaut]

Yeah. A tourist who shows up at a couple of conventions to party knows a lot about the city. Alcohol-based economy my ass, Mr. Conventioneer. You do know that hundreds of thousands of people live, work and go to school in New Orleans? That it has stores and churches and jazz clubs and Little Leagues and historical societies and museums and libraries just like any other biggish city? My best friend is the manager of a Williams-Sonoma, which, last I heard, was not an "alcohol-based" business.

Eve, I think alot of people have respect for the culture of the city, which includes the free-flowing alcohol and partially-dressed bead acquirers. However, assuming the city is completely wiped out, the only things that the rebuilt NO will have in common with the old NO is the latitude and longitude. Now, if a large portion of the city is salvagable (not sure if this is a word), then you might have a point. It boils down to a cost-benefit analysis, in which the costs and benefits do not necessarily have a monetary value.

[Missy2U]

Thanks, msmith537 and everyone else here who explained - I really appreciate it!

[plnnr]

[ Les Nessman ] "Every day the Mississippi river dumps18 milion tons of silt into the Gulf of Mexico. How much longer will we alow this to continue! ?" [ /Les Nessman ]

There's a difference. People are the engines of change in New London, and as such they (arguably) have a conscience and can alter their actions to the benefit of all (naive statement); natural phenomena happen regardless of our desires. You gotta do better than that.

Insurance guy is looking at this picture and wondering: if so much of the city will need bulldozing before it can be rebuilt, why rebuild it just there? We could eminent domain a few hundred people the hell outta the bayous further inland and rebuild the bulk of the commercial interests there, and run high-speed freight/commuter trains to the ultramodern docks down at the mouth of the river.

It's a nice city, sure. But it got blasted. floodwaters are doing damage to the foundations of structures already 100 years old--I'm guessing that most of the old & beautiful architecture has already been rendered uninhabitable or will be shortly, and can't be repaired.

I was being facetious.

[plnnr]

I'm proposing that we create a list of expendable cities:

1. New Orleans (flooding, too old, too many drunks and stippers)
2. San Francisco (earthquakes, too many gay people, and don't get me started on those hills...)
3. Venice (built on canals, even older than New Orleans, really old buildings, Italians)
4. Amsterdam (built on canals AND dikes, probably too many gay people and strippers, hash bars)

Other candidates?

[Pork Rind]

For how long?

From what I've read (John McPhee's The Control of Nature), the Mississippi wants to switch to the Atchafalaya river as its outlet to the Gulf. The only thing that has stopped it is the Corp of Engineers, and there are questions about how long they will be able to preserve the status quo.

This is the issue I'm surprised not to hear more about. Everything I've read about the Old River control structures seems to say that the Corps cannot prevent this capture in the long run. What happens to New Orleans when the Mississippi River flows to the sea fifty or a hundred miles west of the city??

[Shagnasty]

I'm proposing that we create a list of expendable cities:

1. New Orleans (flooding, too old, too many drunks and stippers)
2. San Francisco (earthquakes, too many gay people, and don't get me started on those hills...)
3. Venice (built on canals, even older than New Orleans, really old buildings, Italians)
4. Amsterdam (built on canals AND dikes, probably too many gay people and strippers, hash bars)

Other candidates?

That's a pretty good list. I would like to point out however that New Orleans is a gay mecca too in case there is some kind of point system involved.

As the newsman says in the movie Airplane, "I say, let them die!"

[Cervaise]

Minor hijack:classic geographic thoery regarding city locationI'm interested in this subject. Is there a good book for the lay reader? Would the Jane Jacob book mentioned by plnnr above qualify?

[cowgirl]

Anybody else have the Tragically Hip song going through their head:

"... My memory is muddy what's this river I'm in
New Orleans is sinking and I don't want to swim"

Og yes. For days. Glad I'm not the only one.

[OtakuLoki]

While I see the points that the OP is raising - there's a human reaction that any cost is worth it to save one's home. This isn't a rational decision, it's an emotional one. And no matter how one talks about cost benefit analysis that kind of reasoning isn't going to affect those people most directly affected by the proposal to make a New New Orleans in a more reasonable location.


I'd also like to point out to elmwood and Anaamika that there is a big difference between talking about relocating New Orleans, a metropolis that exists, now, in spite of natural forces that want to get rid of it, and letting Buffalo die. Buffalo is in economic decline, and a poster-child for the Rust Belt, sure. But it's not in constant danger of flooding - unless you count snow. ;)

There is an inertia to a metropolitan area that once established is hard to shift. It is possible for me to believe that sooner or later rationality will win with respect to New Orleans. I don't believe that the rationality that you're speaking of for Buffalo will happen. Frankly, part of Buffalo's problem is the aid it is getting - unlike other areas that have had their original raison d'etre disappear with changing economic forces, Buffalo has been getting enough aid to stagger onwards, trying to revitalize itself as a manufacturing and transshipment point. Had things gone differently* we could be talking about 'The Niagara Corridor' instead of 'Silicon Valley.'

Instead of trying to revitalize the dying industry of the area, I would think people should be looking for new opportunities. But that's harder to legislate, and sell to voters. Aid for formerly productive industries will always look more palatable to political types than actually fostering innovation. But it rarely works in the long run. I could go on about how Eastman Kodak stabbed itself in the back - repeatedly - with the way it responded to the advent of digital photography for the same reasons.






Sorry, I'm getting off topic. All I really wanted to say was that Gabe is proposing a rational solution to an emotional problem, and that's going to be a harder sell than the 'simple' solution of rebuilding. And I don't think anyone is interested in spending the politcal clout to sell it.

[plnnr]

Minor hijack:I'm interested in this subject. Is there a good book for the lay reader? Would the Jane Jacob book mentioned by plnnr above qualify?

Jacob's doesn't speak so much to geography as she does to the individual components of the cities themselves - why neighborhoods are important, for instance.

I'll go through my library and get some titles that speak more directly to geography and get back in touch.

[Rysdad]

Yeah. A tourist who shows up at a couple of conventions to party knows a lot about the city. Alcohol-based economy my ass, Mr. Conventioneer. You do know that hundreds of thousands of people live, work and go to school in New Orleans? That it has stores and churches and jazz clubs and Little Leagues and historical societies and museums and libraries just like any other biggish city? My best friend is the manager of a Williams-Sonoma, which, last I heard, was not an "alcohol-based" business.

Contrary to your ass, NO's economy is largely based on tourism--which, coincidentally, is alcohol-based in this case. Who do you think supports the jazz clubs, museums, and historical societies? And restaraunts? And hotels? And casinos?

Tourists. Conventioneers. Many, many of them merrily drinking. Without whom NO certainly would not exist in its present form. (Well, pre-Katrina form.)

Imagine Mardi Gras without liquor? It's Macy's Day parade, only sweatier. Not too many people flock to New York for that.

Take away the French Quarter, the restaraunts, the hotels and the riverboats and what would be left of the city? Almost nothing.

I reiterate: the economy of NO itself is largely alcohol-based.

Your friend at Wiiliams Sonoma will probably do a gang-busters business restocking homes.

That is, he would, if his inventory hasn't been destroyed.

The tone of your post indicated kind of a sneer at tourists. You shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you.

[plnnr]

[QUOTE=Rysdad]
Take away the French Quarter, the restaraunts, the hotels and the riverboats and what would be left of the city? Almost nothing.

I reiterate: the economy of NO itself is largely alcohol-based.

[QUOTE]

You're leaving out the Port of New Orleans.

[Mr. Slant]

You mean . . . we can't just put New Orleans on a big dolly and roll it up to somewhere near Minneapolis?

Given current weather conditions, perhaps we'd be better off trying a barge.

[The Great Sun Jester]

You're leaving out the Port of New Orleans.
I suppose you know that port has alcohol in it? :dubious:

[Eve]

The tone of your post indicated kind of a sneer at tourists.

I sneer at tourists who come rolling into town for a couple days of drinking and whoring and then say the city's not worth saving 'cause it's nothing but a bunch of bars and whores, yeah.

[pravnik]

This is a mistake of economies of scale. If a charming old house or an historic neighborhood was subjected to catastrophic flooding and was in a flood zone where such flooding was likely to be repeated, then yes, abandonment might be the right option, but a port city isn't a house or neighborhood. New Orleans is a major center of industry, commerce, petroleum, etc., and is now the site of a massive environmental disaster that absolutely has to be cleaned up. There's simply no way of putting a lid on it and saying "city's over" now.

[TVeblen]

I say you don't know what the fuck you are talking about either.

Ratchet it back, Shagnasty. This isn't the Pit.

TVeblen

[Sunspace]

People, people! You're being too conservative!

I agree with the OP in that the city should not be rebuilt as it was, below sea-level and river-level in an enclosure protected by levees and continuously drained by pumps.

But that's not the only way it can be rebuilt.

Imagine this:

The levees are opened, allowing the Mississippi to resume replenishing the wetlands and restoring their protection, letting the Mississippi chase the Atchafalaya and find a new opening to the sea, letting the waters find new levels and directions.

Once we know where the waters are going, we can rebuild.

The city is rebuilt on pilings and barges and smaller islands above the new adjusted level of the waters, even more like Venice. Historical districts and city treasures can be surrounded in smaller, more manageable enclosures--or rebuilt on higher islands, as many were rebuilt in Europe.

The ports and railway lines and pipelines can be rebuilt on bridges and causeways as well.

[DMark]

Only slightly off-topic, but I remember when I was living in NYC and went to Fire Island for a week, I asked why someone would have an expensive home where probably every 5 years or so, a storm would damage or maybe even totally destroy the building. The homeowner said, "there is a special insurance from the Federal Government that costs practically nothing, so if my house is totally destroyed, I can get it rebuilt better for free." He was dead serious. And no one thought it odd that people continued to build homes over and over on land that was basically a disaster waiting to happen. If that were the case, the entire State of Florida would be a ghost town (ghost state?) by now.

I think the better idea is to figure out a way to make buildings and cities that can take the brunt of what Mother Nature has to offer. The earthquake building codes in California have worked quite well so far. A tremor that would kill thousands in impoverished countries barely breaks a window in California. (Of course, when that 9.5 hits, all bets are off.)

It will be interesting to see the remedies that are designed/suggested to make sure a disaster of this scope doesn't happen in New Orleans again.

[Zebra]

I just love the idea that cities are like furniture and you can just pick them up and rearrange them when the mood strikes you.


NO is flooded. That doesn't mean it's been uterly destroyed. Can we wait a few days and access the damage before we throw the baby out with the water?

Stuff has to be loaded and unloaded at the mouth of the Mississippi river. All kinds of stuff. And that stuff moves to and from places all over America.

Speaking of which, arent' we called The United States of America? What is with this insane, you're on your own, thinking. No city or state in America can get by on it's own. We need each other and we need to help each other when necessary. Yes, when we rebuild NO, and we will, measures to try and protect the city better will be taken. The idea that another level 4 or 5 Hurricane is going to hit NO five minutes after we finish repairing the damage from this one is ridiculous. How long has it been since Andrew? How long has it been since the last major hurricane hit NO? Wasn't that '69? (dude)

[Rysdad]

I sneer at tourists who come rolling into town for a couple days of drinking and whoring and then say the city's not worth saving 'cause it's nothing but a bunch of bars and whores, yeah.

Eve, I worked in New Orleans--as part of the travel and tourism industry.

I've also visited it as a tourist.

And, yes, there are a bunch or bars and whores. That's not debatable.

You questioned my assessment that the economy of NO was largely alcohol-based (as included in the tourism). There's no question about that, either. It is.

That you'd condemn the same people that provide the basis for the city's existence is denying the obvious.

[Zebra]

Here is some data on employment in New Orleans. (http://bls.gov/eag/eag.la_neworleans_msa.htm)


As you can see Leisure and Hospitality is quite large but not near to the number one catagory of Trade, Transportation and Utilties.

[clnilsen]

So if we're keeping N'awlens, can we still ditch Buffalo?


I'll see your Buffalo, and raise you an Akron. :eek:

Seriously, it seems to me that what will likely happen from this is that instead of the city being abandoned, it will become more "right-sized" ie that many people will not return to the area, and much of it will consequently not be rebuilt in the same manner.

This actually may be best for the area in the long-run, from an economic POV, as the remaing folk will enjoy a better level of unemployment.

Also, you'll see some of the other gulf ports take up some of the slack, as certainly some companies will use the opportunity to relocate for various reasons.

[asterion]

Why? Because fuck Mother Nature, that's why. I'm not about to let that bitch push me around.
If we abandon New Orleans, Mother Nature has won.

And does anyone else keep reading the thread title as Charlton Heston?

[CynicalGabe]

If we abandon New Orleans, Mother Nature has won.
I was not aware we were locked in some face-saving showdown with her. If the geographic location makes it hazardous or downright stupid to have a city there, common sense tells me that we should get the heck out! Its not like Mother Nature gives a rat's patoot how defiant we are.


And does anyone else keep reading the thread title as Charlton Heston?

Don't get the Pharaoh angry!

[Mr. Goob]

Hey HEY I'm talking to you there. I live in Buffalo dammit. We are not closing up and leaving anytime soon.

I was raised here and came back after living in Orlando, Philadelphia, San Fransisco, and Washington DC. I could make more money elewhere but my living expenses would go up dramatically.

I could go on and on why I think it's a great place to live but I'd say the same things you would about why your home is a great place to live. It's where the heart is.

If I didn't know better I'd think somebody is just angling to steal our football team.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

If New Orleans is abandoned, where will hundreds upon hundreds of people get drunk and flash crowds for plastic beads every February?

Vegas, Baby.

[Quercus]

New Orleans, the city itself, has value. That's real estate we're talking about. [If we move it, ]who is going to compensate the property owners for the value of their property (land, buildings, infrastructure, inventories, etc. etc. etc.)?

I don't know. If we rebuild it, who is going to pay for the cost (temporary shelters, cleaning, rebuilding, stronger flood protection, etc.)?

The point is, there's only value in that property if it's dry. And making it dry is going to cost money, mostly out of my federal taxes. So I think it's perfectly reasonably, from an ethical point of view, to consider spending my tax money in a way that won't require spending it again in a few years.

Which is not to say I think that moving NO is necessarily the best solution given the actual facts, but I don't think that there's a moral obligation to rebuild it and use my tax money to restore the value of someone else's property, when they were perfectly aware of the flood possibility when they purchased it.

[Poonther]

Hey plnnr don't forget Dubai (Bombay) on your expendable cities list.

New Orleans is worth saving and rebuilding. It's one of a few unique cities in America. Even when you close your eyes you KNOW you are in N.O. But even with your eyes open, one at times isn't sure if it is it Kansas City? Indianapolis? Columbus? Cincy? Atlanta? Charlotte?


I agree with most things plnnr and Eve have said!

[Magiver]

The problem lies with the Lake Pontchartrain levee. The danger of failure during a hurricane was discussed publicly last year so it wasn’t unexpected. But as usually, 20/20 hindsight is expensive. They had storm induced flooding 25 years ago and have slowly tried to improve the levee system. If only common sense prevailed. As it stands now there are estimates of $25 billion in damage (not economic loss) to the area. Tossing in a little math shows the breakeven point for failure. If there is only 1 hurricane every 100 years then 1% of $25B is $250 million. That number goes up as the time interval decreases between extreme weather events. I’m guessing there is going to be a rethink on the structural design of both levees and connecting canals.

A little irony from the net:

A Rising Problem - No More (http://www.weather.com/newscenter/specialreports/hurricanes/vulnerablecities/neworleans.html)
Snip-1: Stories of snakes, fish and alligators swimming through neighborhoods following hurricanes haunt New Orleans residents, but not as much as stories of caskets floating atop of floodwaters.

Snip-2 Engineering now allows underground burial in the sub-sea level city, and floating caskets are a thing of the past. "That no longer really never happens in New Orleans because the land has been drained since the turn of the century. A system of water pumps... drains water out from under the city 24 hours a day."

[sturmhauke]

For those of you saying other Gulf ports can take up New Orleans' shipping if the city is abandoned, look at this map of the Mississippi River Basin (http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/). The major tributaries reach the entire Midwestern US and much of the South. If there is no port city where New Orleans stands, where goods can be transferred from rivergoing to seagoing vessels, all those goods would then cost more because they would have to be transported by truck, rail, or airplane for more of their journey. Here's an article (http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/8/8/69804388.html) about some economic projections post-Katrina:
The stakes are huge. About 6,000 sea-going vessels pass through the Port of New Orleans annually, loaded with bulk cargoes and manufactured good destined for ports and rail hubs along the 14,500 miles of inland waterways that serve the South and Midwest.

The Port of New Orleans alone handled 31.4 million tons of cargo in 2004, up 5% from 2003, with imports accounting for 72% of the traffic...

Heavy silting, typical in flood conditions, could clog the channel, forcing engineers to dredge a new one, a massive undertaking that could take up to two months.

Such a closure would effectively cut off bulk import and export markets from just east of the Rockies to west of the Appalachians, driving up the cost of the storm that many economists already are predicting will cost the overall economy $30 billion...

The U.S. is the world's biggest exporter of agricultural items by both volume and value. Any interruption to these exports, used extensively in feed, could have a big impact on global food costs.
Guess where a big chunk of those exports are grown? The Midwest. Guess how most of them get exported? By river, through New Orleans. So if there is no port near the mouth of the Mississippi River, you are looking at permanent, massive changes in the global economy. New Orleans might enjoy a large influx of money from tourism, but shipping is its backbone.

[Cervaise]

So if there is no port near the mouth of the Mississippi River, you are looking at permanent, massive changes in the global economy.The local NPR news station here in Seattle had a brief discussion this morning of a probable short-term and possible long-term increase in the amount of agricultural production that is brought west by rail for shipment out of our port while the normal route is unavailable.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

For those of you saying other Gulf ports can take up New Orleans' shipping if the city is abandoned, look at this map of the Mississippi River Basin (http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/). The major tributaries reach the entire Midwestern US and much of the South. If there is no port city where New Orleans stands, where goods can be transferred from rivergoing to seagoing vessels, all those goods would then cost more because they would have to be transported by truck, rail, or airplane for more of their journey. Here's an article (http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/8/8/69804388.html) about some economic projections post-Katrina:

Guess where a big chunk of those exports are grown? The Midwest. Guess how most of them get exported? By river, through New Orleans. So if there is no port near the mouth of the Mississippi River, you are looking at permanent, massive changes in the global economy. New Orleans might enjoy a large influx of money from tourism, but shipping is its backbone.


hmmm...Memphis is a major routing point for rail/road/ river barge traffic...will it gain or lose traffic from the re-routing?

[Eva Luna]

Hey plnnr don't forget Dubai (Bombay) on your expendable cities list.



[nitpick] Bombay is also known as Mumbai, not Dubai. Dubai is in the Middle East.

[sturmhauke]

The local NPR news station here in Seattle had a brief discussion this morning of a probable short-term and possible long-term increase in the amount of agricultural production that is brought west by rail for shipment out of our port while the normal route is unavailable.
I tend to think that shipments to or from the Pacific would already come through one of the West Coast ports, instead of through the Panama Canal and up the Mississippi.
hmmm...Memphis is a major routing point for rail/road/ river barge traffic...will it gain or lose traffic from the re-routing?
That's a good question. I would guess that if Memphis became the southernmost port on the Mississippi, river traffic might transfer to rails bound for coastal ports.

[Poonther]

[nitpick] Bombay is also known as Mumbai, not Dubai. Dubai is in the Middle East.
You are absolutely correct! My bad and my undergraduate degree is in geography. Not sure where my brain was when I wrote that. :)

[PookahMacPhellimey]

The Dutch don't often get hit by Category 4 &5 hurricanes.

Nonetheless Dutch government has offered to send out dyke inspection team (no jokes, please) to NO. Cite in Dutch (http://www.bn.nl/ShowANPNieuwsArtikel.asp?Context=N%7C2%2C1&newsPanel=uitgelicht&id=20488)

I am shocked and amazed that some of you seem to think abandoning the city is even an option.

[Loopydude]

My personal oppinion is that everything not essential the Port should probably be abandoned, or scaled-back dramatically. Either that, or bite the bullet and build the most robust system of levees the world has ever seen. Oh, and fill in some of the goddamned land so that water will run out, not in. Otherwise, you're just asking for the city to get flooded again, which will happen, eventually, and possibly sooner than many are willing to believe. Seems pretty stupid to dump tens of billions of dollars back into a bowl below sea level, surrounded by water, and in a region plagued by hurricanes, if you're not going to acknowledge the daunting reality of that arrangement and do some fucking efficacious thing about it.

But, of course, I got my first pitting for such thoughts, so obviously I'm stupid, insane, and un-American.

[CynicalGabe]

dyke inspection team
...


I am shocked and amazed that some of you seem to think abandoning the city is even an option.
I am shocked and amazed that people think rebuilding this moronically located city is an option.

[Tentacle Monster]

Hey, people, there's a place in the US where there are practically no natural disasters. No earthquakes, no hurricanes, no floods, no volcanoes, no tornadoes, no plagues of locusts, nothing except the occasional drought in parts of the state; and that just means you have to dig wells a bit deeper.

That's right, I'm talking about Idaho.

If you were going to take a cross-country trip, Idaho would be one of those states you get an audiobook for. Incidentally, there aren't many natural disasters in Wyoming, either. You do get some tornadoes in Nebraska, though, and the Mississippi has flooded in Missouri badly enough to create a disaster area.

So, not only are the most valuable cities often built in areas prone to natural disaster; it also seems that nobody wants to build in areas safe from them. Take Nevada, for example: they built Las Vegas smack-dab in the middle of the desert! A desert that gets viciously hot in the springtime, never mind summer. That's pretty much a continuous natural disaster. On the other hand, the only way somebody would win a trip to Boise on Wheel of Fortune would be by pissing off Vanna White.

In other words, pump out New Orleans and make her up again. Because nobody wants to go to Omaha for vacation, unless you already live in Nebraska and don't feel like going far.

[Loopydude]

If you were going to take a cross-country trip, Idaho would be one of those states you get an audiobook for.

Gosh, I think Idaho is beautiful, at least the parts I've been to.

[Tentacle Monster]

I agree that Idaho is more or less beautiful. But good luck picking up a decent radio station.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Actually, I think Wisconsin is safer.

[Johnny L.A.]

Hey, people, there's a place in the US where there are practically no natural disasters. No earthquakes, no hurricanes, no floods, no volcanoes, no tornadoes, no plagues of locusts, nothing except the occasional drought in parts of the state; and that just means you have to dig wells a bit deeper.

That's right, I'm talking about Idaho.
Massive fires.

[sturmhauke]

My personal oppinion is that everything not essential the Port should probably be abandoned, or scaled-back dramatically. Either that, or bite the bullet and build the most robust system of levees the world has ever seen. Oh, and fill in some of the goddamned land so that water will run out, not in. Otherwise, you're just asking for the city to get flooded again, which will happen, eventually, and possibly sooner than many are willing to believe. Seems pretty stupid to dump tens of billions of dollars back into a bowl below sea level, surrounded by water, and in a region plagued by hurricanes, if you're not going to acknowledge the daunting reality of that arrangement and do some fucking efficacious thing about it.

But, of course, I got my first pitting for such thoughts, so obviously I'm stupid, insane, and un-American.
Someone in one of the other threads posted that it would take billions of cubic feet of earth to raise the level of New Orleans enough to prevent flooding (the calculation was raising a 100 square mile area by 10 feet). Also, there is no bedrock in the entire delta until you go down several hundred feet, so unless you somehow built a bunch of pillars that far down, any earth piled on top would just settle downwards again.

That said, the area is still vital if you want to use the river for shipping. New Orleans was first settled because of its strategic and trade importance, and those reasons haven't disappeared. Superpowered levees seem like the most likely solution.

[Loopydude]

Yeah, admittedly, that's a lot of dirt, but who says you have to elevate the whole thing? Why must every acre of NO be saved? Is that even possible now? OK, you've got a massive shipping port and oil infrastructure, it it would be nice to have sufficient land nearby so you don't have to build a railroad and huge pipeline out to a small island from which the docks protrude. What would that require?

Also, if you look at this map (http://www.iboston.org/rg/backbayImap_1890.htm) of Boston, it's easy to see that most of the city is actually built atop fill. From 1830 to 1890, approx 1100 acres of land was added to the city by digging up hills in surrounding communities and carting the remains to be dumped onto water and tidal flats. I've no idea what the cubic yardage is (trying to find out), but with 19th-century tech, they moved a hell of a lot of land from one place to another and build a big city on top of it.

[Cervaise]

Incidentally, there aren't many natural disasters in Wyoming, either.Well, until the giant-ass Yellowstone volcano goes off.

[Loopydude]

Yeah, but then we'll all be dead, so why worry?

[rocking chair]

have we decided on whether we are moving buffalo to nola or is it moving nola to buffalo?