Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-17-2017, 01:24 PM
dofe dofe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 715
Would skyscrapers survive rising sea levels?

Inspired by this excerpt from a story of a future NYC flooded by rising water levels. Assuming that water floods the underground and first floors of a skyscraper, what changes (if any) are needed for it to remain functional? Does the water pose any dangers to the structure of the building?
  #2  
Old 03-17-2017, 01:27 PM
Musicat Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 19,977
Does having to take a ferry or kayak to work at your desk job have any importance? How about ordering lunch or stepping out for coffee?
  #3  
Old 03-17-2017, 01:41 PM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,037
Pretty much all the electrical supply system is in the basement. From there it's distributed to the upper floors. That stuff won't work so good under 20+ feet of seawater.

Likewise the pumps that push water to the upper floors are usually in the basement. You really don't want your fresh city purified water pumps sitting underwater in a bath of seawater and city runoff filth.

The physical structure will be fine in the near term, like months. But any concrete or steel that isn't designed to be immersed in salt water will begin deteriorating immediately and will become dangerous over extended time. I have no clue whether that's years or decades, but it will be happening.

As an example, most anything built in WWII at waters' edge that hasn't been maintained has rusted or eroded or been battered apart by the sea. That's 70ish years.



Beside just the consequences for tall building(s), if the normal ocean water level is above the current ground level in a city then 100% of the city's underground infrastructure is underwater.

Every tunnel full of electrical cables is underwater and full of water. Every pipe and tunnel that's supposed to carry fresh clean water is underwater and at risk of salt water intrusion. Every pipe or tunnel that's supposed to carry away waste water and sewage will be underwater and at risk of saltwater intrusion. Any vents it may have to the outside air may now be under the sea. Any underground railroads are full of water. As are streetcar lines. All the roads and underpasses and maybe some overpasses as well. etc.

Pretty much everything is destroyed at least from an economic POV once sea water begins to wash over it in any depth more often than about once a decade. the only exception being stuff that was designed from the git-go to be immersed in sea water.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 03-17-2017 at 01:44 PM.
  #4  
Old 03-17-2017, 01:44 PM
gnoitall gnoitall is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,450
Since utilities are delivered from underground in a big city town center (i.e., to a skyscraper), you'll have no utility service. No electricity, no running water, no environment control, and sewer service would be "stick your ass out the window."

(As LSLGuy said.)

I doubt the building's lower floors will tolerate wave action or salt-water corrosion very long.

I wonder if submersion would do anything to the buildings footings? If they're piling-founded into bedrock, maybe not.

Last edited by gnoitall; 03-17-2017 at 01:45 PM. Reason: ninja credit
  #5  
Old 03-17-2017, 01:46 PM
constanze constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 5,146
So basically a permanent flooding? I'm not a civil engineer, but after the floods we have here rather often*, I'd say it's not good for buildings. Even if the water were stationary, the humidity seeps into the concrete or masonry, rises and weakens the stability. And I would expect that if the first floor of a Skyscraper crumbles after one or two years, the rest probably topples over, too.

Since NY is on the ocean coast, the flooding water would not be still, however, but there would be currents and maybe tides. That would cause damage to the wet, softened structure much faster - debris in the water knocks holes in walls, that Kind of Thing.

Aren't a lot of technical Systems (HVAC and so on) in the Basement (along with parking garages), the water main, and the power cable coming from the street? So that wouldn't work any longer.

In Addition to the structural damage, there's also what the flood water brings along - not just debris, but sweeping up and re-depositing things like oil tanks ripped open. So poisinous substances may leak into the porous walls. (If the flood recedes, this is a Problem for clean-up, but this Scenario is a permanent flood).

Basically, if a City becomes flooded, move away?

*It takes only a few days for a flood to build, but weeks for the water to recede - and then, not only has the mud to be shoveled out and washed away before it hardens to Stone, experts have to go around and consider each house that was partly submerged whether it's still safe to use or if the structual integrity has been damaged and it Needs to be demolished. Those are small houses compared to Skyscrapers, though.
  #6  
Old 03-17-2017, 02:33 PM
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 6,017
If the buildings use rebar, they are boned.
  #7  
Old 03-17-2017, 03:19 PM
Dewey Finn Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 25,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by constanze View Post
So basically a permanent flooding? I'm not a civil engineer, but after the floods we have here rather often*, I'd say it's not good for buildings. Even if the water were stationary, the humidity seeps into the concrete or masonry, rises and weakens the stability. And I would expect that if the first floor of a Skyscraper crumbles after one or two years, the rest probably topples over, too.
I think after Superstorm Sandy, buildings in the New York area have been and will be built without critical infrastructure at or below ground level. Here's an article from last month about a low-rent apartment building in Manhattan in which the boiler was relocated to the roof.
  #8  
Old 03-17-2017, 04:59 PM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 19,922
Heard part of the interview with the guy on SciFri today. Interesting. His scenario is that basically the skyscrapers, being built steel into the bedrock, would not collapse even as the facades on the lower floors do. Certain sections would be tidal zones. Major investments and technologies would be made adapting the structures for the new circumstances but, ehem, sunk costs being what they are many do not move and instead repurpose the city into a Venetian model.

He sounded like he researched it out well but I have no ability to judge.
  #9  
Old 03-17-2017, 05:46 PM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 7,921
My understanding is that some of the buildings in Venice, Italy already have their lowest floors flooded ...
  #10  
Old 03-18-2017, 06:23 AM
Meurglys Meurglys is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 2,246
I'm reading the book at the moment, and thoroughly enjoying it.

He does seem to have done loads of research on New York and tidal flows, etc. but in the book he also makes use of graphene-based cladding materials which haven't been invented yet.
Many building have collapsed, or are about to, but the north of Manhattan is high enough that the risen sea levels don't cover some areas, even at high tide.

He's known for the research he does for his novels, especially on climate change, so I'm willing to assume knows what he's talking about.
  #11  
Old 03-18-2017, 07:52 AM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26,467
This is what wood and concrete piers look like after sitting in the Hudson River for a few decades and they don't even have a million tons of building sitting on them.

I actually studied civil engineering, so I kind of know what I'm talking about. Skyscrapers can certainly survive sitting in salt water for a few decades. They aren't going to melt or anything. But their lifespans will be significantly shortened and actually using them would be impractical. There would be no roads or subway service (maybe New York Waterway ferries and Water Taxis). All the electrical, sewer and telecom services would be destroyed.

I'm guessing it would be a lot cheaper and more practical to build sea walls around lower Manhattan or put a Themes-like flood gate across the Narrows instead of trying to retroactively turn Manhattan into Venice.
  #12  
Old 03-18-2017, 09:01 AM
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 16,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
This is what wood and concrete piers look like after sitting in the Hudson River for a few decades and they don't even have a million tons of building sitting on them.

I actually studied civil engineering, so I kind of know what I'm talking about. Skyscrapers can certainly survive sitting in salt water for a few decades. They aren't going to melt or anything. But their lifespans will be significantly shortened and actually using them would be impractical. There would be no roads or subway service (maybe New York Waterway ferries and Water Taxis). All the electrical, sewer and telecom services would be destroyed.

I'm guessing it would be a lot cheaper and more practical to build sea walls around lower Manhattan or put a Themes-like flood gate across the Narrows instead of trying to retroactively turn Manhattan into Venice.
The link is hosed.

The fact that problems just getting people in and out of the building would indirectly cause problems. No company would want to be in such a building. (Just rent out space further inland!)

Without tenants, maintenance of the building is pointless. So not only are the first floors being eroded away, the rest of the building will start to decay. The windows will blow out and not be replaced. The roof would leak. Birds would start to live in it (and their poop isn't good for the structure). Etc.

Such buildings would be a hazard to the surrounding area and need to come down sooner rather than later. (The longer the decay, the riskier the demolition.) But if the surrounding area is a wasteland, maybe no one will care.
  #13  
Old 03-18-2017, 09:44 AM
dofe dofe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 715
Thanks everyone for the interesting responses.

This makes me wonder how the buildings in Venice have managed to stay up through the decades (even centuries?).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #14  
Old 03-18-2017, 11:28 AM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 27,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
My understanding is that some of the buildings in Venice, Italy already have their lowest floors flooded ...
I was in Venice a few years ago. I was told that the buildings are designed to be resilient to flooding.
  #15  
Old 03-18-2017, 12:52 PM
Snnipe 70E Snnipe 70E is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I think after Superstorm Sandy, buildings in the New York area have been and will be built without critical infrastructure at or below ground level. Here's an article from last month about a low-rent apartment building in Manhattan in which the boiler was relocated to the roof.
Power enters the building below the street level. So power would be a problem. The main switchgear is normally where power comes into a building. But water tight splices could be made and the switch gear and distribution could be moved up to an upper floor. Water pumps are on the lower levels, they could be moved up to an upper floor. Sewer lines would be a problem. any sumps sewer would no longer be useful and the buildings main sewer lines would have to be modified. All floor drains capped off and any sinks and toilets removed and capped off. Fresh water lines that end up under water would have to be protected or removed. Any faucets or outlet valves removed and capped. Any chilled water or heating water lines that are going to be under water would have to be capped off above the water level or protected. Any machine rooms would become useless. Elevators would have to be modified. Floors under water would have to be blanked off so the elevator could not go there. The end of the shaft would have to be moved up so anyone working on the elevator could stand on something solid along with moving all the equipment in the bottom of the shaft up to the new end of shaft. Any elevator wiring under water would have to be removed. Most of the machinery would already be on the roof and upper floors so that would not be a problem. But new entrance doors would have to be added along with landings for people to get off the taxi boats. And the steel supporting the building would have to be protected from corrosion.

Or you could just build a big coffer dam around the buildings and put in major pumps with emergency power supply.
  #16  
Old 03-18-2017, 02:56 PM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 19,922
Well good thing then that the hypothetical is not talking or asking about wood and concrete so much as about the steel skeleton.

The hypothetical is placed over 120 years in the future. Assuming no flooding and just the passage of time today's skyscrapers will, with the exception of their steel skeleton's embedded into the bedrock, be Thesueus' ships. Heck the Empire State Building, built in 1930, already has had large amounts of its guts (elevators, electrical, heating and AC, windows, portions of facade inside and out) replaced and brought up to current requirements with more recent technologies, mostly done when it was only about half that 120 years out.

The question has to assume that that which is likely going to replaced over the next 120 years gets replaced with technologies developed over the next century in ways that adapt to a partially flooded city. It assumes that a critical mass decides to stay in buildings so modified and further that the work of adapting the spaces and the infrastructure to the flooded circumstance is a significant portion of the local economy.

Maybe it would make more economic sense to dam and dike off the area and have pumps running all the time, maybe not, but the hypothetical is that the decision to fight the tide lost to adapting to living with the tide.
  #17  
Old 03-18-2017, 04:14 PM
constanze constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 5,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
My understanding is that some of the buildings in Venice, Italy already have their lowest floors flooded ...
But they aren't modern skyscrapers built from concrete. These are three- or four story buildings. And Venice has a huge problem with the difference between "floods three or four times a year" to "a 100 days of each year are now flood" eroding the structures.
  #18  
Old 03-18-2017, 04:33 PM
constanze constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 5,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The question has to assume that that which is likely going to replaced over the next 120 years gets replaced with technologies developed over the next century in ways that adapt to a partially flooded city. It assumes that a critical mass decides to stay in buildings so modified and further that the work of adapting the spaces and the infrastructure to the flooded circumstance is a significant portion of the local economy.

Maybe it would make more economic sense to dam and dike off the area and have pumps running all the time, maybe not, but the hypothetical is that the decision to fight the tide lost to adapting to living with the tide.
Yes: what's technological possible and what makes economically sense are different. And what makes emotionally sense is not always the same as economically.

The time factor of the flooding is also a question. If you know in advance that in 1 or 5 or 10 years, everything on Manhattan will be flooded, but make the political decision to stay, the construction business would have time to adapt the buildings to withstand.
If people wake up one morning with 3 yards of water in Manhattan, it would be much more difficult to build a dam, pump the water outside, and repair the damage. Leaving it and rebuilding elsewhere might be cheaper.

The third option - if there is not enough space for rebuilding elsewhere - would be to erect stilt houses - probably not skyscrapers - where only the stilts are immersed in the water, bearing the platforms on which the houses are erected; or simply let the platforms swim (like floating houses in the netherlands https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwimmendes_Bauwerk who stopped building dams because climate changes makes water rise faster than they can build. So they accept flooding and build swimming structures).

From what I understand, the importance of Manhattan is not the island itself, but the fact that "everybody else important" is there. So an agreed exodus of "everybody important" to elsewhere would make just as much sense as a costly upgrade. If the upgrade/ change is spread over decades, the cost might be low enough to be bourne and not get upset, and stay. Transport - like high-rail trains instead of subways would have to be assured.
  #19  
Old 03-18-2017, 06:22 PM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 7,921
Worst case scenario ... in a century, a six foot berm will provide Manhattan protection up to, but not including, remnant tropic storms like Sandy ... a few centuries down the road, who knows what technologies will be available ...

There's a higher probability that before New York City gets flooded ... Vancouver, Seattle and Portland will be reduced to rubble in fifteen minutes flat ... so we'll have learned how to replaced the skyscrapers in NYC by then ...
  #20  
Old 03-18-2017, 06:50 PM
Colibri Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 38,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by constanze View Post
From what I understand, the importance of Manhattan is not the island itself, but the fact that "everybody else important" is there. So an agreed exodus of "everybody important" to elsewhere would make just as much sense as a costly upgrade.
To some extent, yes, but the reason that New York is located where it is is because it's the best port on the East Coast of the US. Some infrastructure like docks and container ports depend for their utility on being right on the coast. If the coastline is continually moving inland then it will be impossible to build port facilities that will last for any length of time.
  #21  
Old 03-18-2017, 08:26 PM
Isilder Isilder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
Pretty much all the electrical supply system is in the basement. From there it's distributed to the upper floors. That stuff won't work so good under 20+ feet of seawater.

??? Haven't you heard of seepage, ground water, aquifer ?

Haven't you seen the results of a retaining wall at Manhatten being holed ? The streets were under water - the basements would all be waterproofed, but the street level wasn't. What I am getting at is that the wall to the river was the wall of the basement of the building at the edge .. and so the water went in through there and went from one buildings basement to the next. The wall holds the river out.. Just like the wall/roof does in an underwater tunnel (which are often more of a pipe in the water than a tunnel through rock... there being all sorts of mixes of semiments and water.. 1%,10%, 50%.. eg Sydney Harbour Tunnel being a pipe dropped to the bottom. )


and anyway since the street level is at river level, the ground water will be just below.. well above basement floor, (commonly 5 car park levels deep ? ).. and thats just the usable levels.

So ... yes the buildings would survive being in the canal area (Veniced)... OF course they would be able to wall in any city, and create dikes, walls, banks, drainage... as long as the pumps can pump out rain and sewerage, and the river/lake/sea/ocean stays below the walls.
  #22  
Old 03-19-2017, 07:40 AM
bob++ bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 5,660
The important difference to Venice is that Venice was built before electricity, gas, and sewers. By the time they arrived, the authorities were already aware of the problem.
  #23  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:58 AM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isilder View Post
??? Haven't you heard of seepage, ground water, aquifer ?
...
and the river/lake/sea/ocean stays below the walls.
Did you even read the OP? The part where he says "Assuming that water floods the underground and first floors of a skyscraper, what changes ..."

He is explicitly NOT discussing the situation where we build dikes New Orleans-style to keep the bulk water out of the buildings. He want to know what happens after the lower floors have been fully undersea for years or decades.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 03-19-2017 at 10:00 AM.
  #24  
Old 03-19-2017, 10:43 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 21,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by dofe View Post
Thanks everyone for the interesting responses.

This makes me wonder how the buildings in Venice have managed to stay up through the decades (even centuries?)
They're masonry, not concrete. And under constant maintenance. Any visitor to Venice could probably attest to one or more palazzi being hidden behind construction facades during their visit (they seem to have printed facade covers for all the major buildings on the Grand Canal for just such times)
  #25  
Old 03-19-2017, 12:51 PM
Spiderman Spiderman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 8,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snnipe 70E View Post
. But new entrance doors would have to be added along with landings for people to get off the taxi boats.
Fire towers are like a building within a building. Frequently in the middle of a building with a horizontal hallway to an external exit door would need to be reconstructed to not exit underwater. Safety codes would at least require life jackets if not actual life boats so people fleeing the fire don't drown. Storage space for these would require a wider hallway than current regulations require.
  #26  
Old 03-19-2017, 01:43 PM
jjakucyk jjakucyk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 250
I picture something like New New York ala Futurama, where the new city is built above the old one. Once new utilities are built, new streets and sidewalks would also be built above the water, at today's 3rd or 4th floors or whatever. However, floors don't align between buildings, which makes setting the new street/sidewalk level difficult, but there's no reason to believe they'd just leave the streets as canals. The city wouldn't be able to function at all if everyone needed a boat, even a high-occupancy water taxi to get around, they're just too slow and don't have the capacity of the subways and people walking on the sidewalks (streets with motor vehicles have significantly less capacity to move people on a per square foot basis). We'd probably see more skywalks and other elevated connections between buildings, and perhaps the new streets are pontoons of some sort. I see a lot of creative opportunities here.

Back to shoring up existing buildings, the issues of mechanical systems, exits, elevators, and the like have been pretty well touched on already. Also, while salt water is quite corrosive, it's salt water AND air that cause rust and deterioration. Objects that stay underwater, especially cold water, don't deteriorate as much as you think. It's the alternating wet/dry cycles caused by waves or tides that cause such severe corrosion. So it may be the case that existing foundations which are already underground wouldn't be significantly impacted by having the ocean above them. Even exposed steel or reinforced concrete underwater may be ok for a good long while. It's the stuff near the water line that needs most of the care and attention. Even if waves are blocked, the natural ebb and flow of the tides and even simply wicking action of concrete and the constantly wet environment in the floor of the building that's only half flooded would be where the majority of problems arise. Do barnacles protect the substrate they're attached to? They may act as a natural cement-like coating.
  #27  
Old 03-19-2017, 05:09 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 11,711
An admission of failure, here, but perhaps as a goad: I'm sure we've discussed precisely this in at least one thread on how versions of apocalypse might get played out in cities.

Perhaps prompted by that hodgepodge movie A.I., come to think of it, where such a scene (flooded contemporary city millennia hence) is front and center.
  #28  
Old 03-19-2017, 06:01 PM
constanze constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 5,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colibri View Post
To some extent, yes, but the reason that New York is located where it is is because it's the best port on the East Coast of the US. Some infrastructure like docks and container ports depend for their utility on being right on the coast. If the coastline is continually moving inland then it will be impossible to build port facilities that will last for any length of time.
Yes, I tend to forget sea trade/ traffic. But since the OP was about skyscrapers, I thought "offices", which can be anywhere.

Regarding docks and ports, the Netherlands are trying to build floating platforms. Since ships no longer use wind, how important is the position of the harbour?
  #29  
Old 03-19-2017, 06:07 PM
constanze constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 5,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjakucyk View Post
I picture something like New New York ala Futurama, where the new city is built above the old one. ...
In the Annotated Pratchett files, there is a remark that Seattle was built several times over flooded buildings, streets etc. But I have a hard time believing that means that the water floods and stays. Usually, the water floods, bringing mud etc, and then recedes again, and then the decision is made that it's easer to build on top instead of clearing the muck out. (also, this was probably a time before proper building codes and static loads were known and calculated).

I think that building on top if the water is still there is quite different re the stability. If you use only girders sunk in to the bedrock, it might work, but I don't know if all skyscrapers fit that.
  #30  
Old 03-19-2017, 06:27 PM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by constanze View Post
Yes, I tend to forget sea trade/ traffic. But since the OP was about skyscrapers, I thought "offices", which can be anywhere.

Regarding docks and ports, the Netherlands are trying to build floating platforms. Since ships no longer use wind, how important is the position of the harbour?
Not too. But a harbor is useless unless it's connected to the land-based logistic system.

Tankers can get away with mooring to a small man-made island thingy & connecting into an underwater pipeline network. Container vessels need to come alongside land and there needs to be truck, rail, and/or air transport available to haul the containers or their contents away.

The GW deniers will be amazed at the deadweight economic drag of replacing all this drowning/drowned infrastructure. It'll be like the mother of all tax increases.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 03-19-2017 at 06:27 PM.
  #31  
Old 03-19-2017, 06:33 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 26,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Well good thing then that the hypothetical is not talking or asking about wood and concrete so much as about the steel skeleton.

Not sure why you think that's better.
  #32  
Old 03-19-2017, 07:09 PM
Snnipe 70E Snnipe 70E is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 3,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spiderman View Post
Fire towers are like a building within a building. Frequently in the middle of a building with a horizontal hallway to an external exit door would need to be reconstructed to not exit underwater. Safety codes would at least require life jackets if not actual life boats so people fleeing the fire don't drown. Storage space for these would require a wider hallway than current regulations require.
Wow did not even think about fire. Most high rises are relocation not evacuation incase of a fire above the 7th floor. But there is still the large number that be evacuating from the 1st 7th floors if the fire was on the lower level. This could get interesting to solve.
  #33  
Old 03-19-2017, 09:15 PM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,037
The idea that we'd continue to operate current cities as they go semi-underwater seems silly to me. We'll dike what we can and abandon any other land the ocean occupies.

So there won't be a mass sudden abandonment of, say, Manhattan. We'll just slowly retreat inland to higher ground leaving a ecological and economic disaster area behind. Some areas, such as marinas and wharves may well be able to rise with the sea. Downtowns, residential districts, railways and airports: not so much.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 03-19-2017 at 09:15 PM.
  #34  
Old 03-20-2017, 09:52 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 7,921
It's not like has never happened before ... the final push out of Doggerland is documented in Roman archives ... the Dutch got their "wake-up-call" in 1257 AD ... I would venture to guess the pre-historic oral tradition is full of such tales ... Atlantis, Noah's flood, Oroville ...

Another point is just how long will these skyscrapers last? ... 'cause gee-whiz we should be able to recover the capital costs in the next 500 years ... or maybe we're spending too much money on these things ... ten billion dollars doesn't buy what it used to I guess ...

Just how important is New York Harbor? ... what is the total value of Manhattan Island? ... if these places aren't worth issuing 50 year bonds to protect, then just let them go like so much swampland ... yeesh, in just a short 100,000 years from now it'll all be under 2,000 feet of solid ice anyway ...
  #35  
Old 03-21-2017, 07:30 AM
Meurglys Meurglys is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 2,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
It's not like has never happened before ... the final push out of Doggerland is documented in Roman archives ... the Dutch got their "wake-up-call" in 1257 AD ... I would venture to guess the pre-historic oral tradition is full of such tales ... Atlantis, Noah's flood, Oroville ...
Never heard about the Romans knowing about Doggerland before. Got a cite?
  #36  
Old 03-21-2017, 10:14 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 7,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meurglys View Post
Never heard about the Romans knowing about Doggerland before. Got a cite?
"Third Century Crisis of the Roman Empire" -- BBC -- Feb 17th, 2011:

Quote:
Climate changes and a rise in sea levels ruined the agriculture of what is now the Low Countries, forcing tribes to relocate simply to find food.
  #37  
Old 03-21-2017, 10:56 AM
Meurglys Meurglys is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 2,246
Thanks for the link.
  #38  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:13 PM
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 16,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Nothing in there about Doggerland whose last remnants were well north of the low countries and sank thousands of years before the Romans got to that part of the world.
  #39  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:28 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is online now
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 73,085
This book has an interesting discussion of just how precarious the NYC underground infrastructure is, even now, given constant water seepage from the rivers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Without_Us. You'd have to spend many billions to preserve the city in anything like its current state if the sea keeps rising.

The 2001 movie A.I. Artificial Intelligence had some striking visuals of a near-future flooded Manhattan. Go to 1:23 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-isE7cFJTzU
  #40  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:47 PM
MrDibble MrDibble is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 21,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
That's not Doggerland - out by 6 millennia...
  #41  
Old 03-21-2017, 01:10 PM
constanze constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 5,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
The idea that we'd continue to operate current cities as they go semi-underwater seems silly to me. We'll dike what we can and abandon any other land the ocean occupies.

So there won't be a mass sudden abandonment of, say, Manhattan. We'll just slowly retreat inland to higher ground leaving a ecological and economic disaster area behind. Some areas, such as marinas and wharves may well be able to rise with the sea. Downtowns, residential districts, railways and airports: not so much.
Isn't that what's Happening already - not in Manhattan, but Close by on the East Coast? After Sandy, some Areas have flooding once or twice a week, damaging not only the houses, but also washing away the streets - but because mostly poor and minority People live there, the City/ community doesn't build a dam and pump the water out, they just ... don't spend any Money.
  #42  
Old 03-22-2017, 09:27 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 7,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
Nothing in there about Doggerland whose last remnants were well north of the low countries and sank thousands of years before the Romans got to that part of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
That's not Doggerland - out by 6 millennia...
I was not aware the area between Germany and Doggerland having a different name ...
  #43  
Old 03-22-2017, 10:48 AM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 21,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by constanze View Post
Isn't that what's Happening already - not in Manhattan, but Close by on the East Coast? After Sandy, some Areas have flooding once or twice a week, damaging not only the houses, but also washing away the streets - but because mostly poor and minority People live there, the City/ community doesn't build a dam and pump the water out, they just ... don't spend any Money.
I can't say that I know specifically what you're talking about. It doesn't sound accurate, although in this large country of ours damn near anything is probably happening someplace.

Here's something 100% real that may be similar, or may be the origin of whatever you heard or read after much distortion in the repeated telling.


There are urban areas here in the south of Florida in and around Miami where a few inches of seawater floods the first couple streets immediately along the coast. This happens for a couple to a few hours whenever the tide is extra high. Which it is a couple times a month most months and especially over a two-week period in the fall which have the highest tides of the year.

This is not widespread; the several affected areas are each about 1/4 mile long by a couple blocks wide. This in a continuous urban/suburban area extending along 100ish miles of coastline and extending inland 10 to 20 miles deep.

This has been going on for years and has nothing to do with severe weather or any recent events or changes; it happens on calm sunny days or nights. It also doesn't damage anything. People expect it, the immediately local buildings take countermeasures, and other than perhaps an increased rate of corrosion nothing much happens.

The areas where this happens are not poverty stricken hellholes. Lots of middle class to very expensive condos and houses experience the minor tidal flooding. I wrote here a bit ago about one area near me where the affected houses average in the $20million range. These are the castles of the ruling class, not the hovels of the peons.

Naturally these areas are extra vulnerable to both hurricane-driven flooding in the near (year-to-year) term and to further sea level rise in the decades ahead. So far it's a quaint nuisance, not a crisis. And is being treated by the public as exactly that; a bit of local color scarcely worth mention.

Last edited by LSLGuy; 03-22-2017 at 10:50 AM.
  #44  
Old 03-22-2017, 03:16 PM
Spiderman Spiderman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: somewhere East of there
Posts: 8,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snnipe 70E View Post
Most high rises are relocation not evacuation incase of a fire above the 7th floor.
Do you have a cite for this?
I've both worked & play in highrises & have never heard or seen that one should go up in case of a fire. The one building I worked in had three different messages, fire/alarm floor, floor above & below the fire/alarm floor, & the rest of the building.
  • Fire/alarm floor was enter the fire tower.
  • Above/below floors were stand by the fire tower.
  • Other floors were keep calm, but otherwise do nothing "while we investigate this emergency".
  #45  
Old 03-23-2017, 03:54 PM
MrDibble MrDibble is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 21,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
I was not aware the area between Germany and Doggerland having a different name ...
Well, it does. It's called "the North Sea", since that's what was there by the time the Romans existed, and had been for millennia. Your cite refers to coastal inundations of the North Sea coast, way, way after Doggerland wasn't even a memory.
  #46  
Old 03-23-2017, 09:02 PM
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 18,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
The idea that we'd continue to operate current cities as they go semi-underwater seems silly to me. We'll dike what we can and abandon any other land the ocean occupies.

So there won't be a mass sudden abandonment of, say, Manhattan. We'll just slowly retreat inland to higher ground leaving a ecological and economic disaster area behind. Some areas, such as marinas and wharves may well be able to rise with the sea. Downtowns, residential districts, railways and airports: not so much.
Or raise the bottom level of the city and extend all of the entry shafts and holes into the subterranean system up a half dozen yards, and rename the city Neo-Venice.
  #47  
Old 03-24-2017, 08:29 PM
VOW VOW is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NE AZ
Posts: 2,390
Forget the buildings. The entire place will be uninhabitable because of nasty water. unless you can get a hydraulics engineer knowledgeable about tides and currents and show the flooded areas will be "refreshed" with the Atlantic Ocean, the entire place will make a cesspool look pristine. Add rotten bodies, decaying vegetation, chemical pollutants--who cares about structures? Add hepatitis, typhoid, amoebic dysentery...I don't think even the most rugged, well-prepared survivalist would last very long.

~VOW
  #48  
Old 03-24-2017, 08:55 PM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 7,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Well, it does. It's called "the North Sea", since that's what was there by the time the Romans existed, and had been for millennia. Your cite refers to coastal inundations of the North Sea coast, way, way after Doggerland wasn't even a memory.
Doggerland isn't a name from memory ... it's a modern term used to describe the lands currently under the North Sea ... as late as 1953 the North Sea claimed a fair chunk of Holland forcing the evacuation of 70,000 people ... it's an on-going process recorded as early as the 3rd Century AD ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by VOW View Post
Forget the buildings. The entire place will be uninhabitable because of nasty water. unless you can get a hydraulics engineer knowledgeable about tides and currents and show the flooded areas will be "refreshed" with the Atlantic Ocean, the entire place will make a cesspool look pristine. Add rotten bodies, decaying vegetation, chemical pollutants--who cares about structures? Add hepatitis, typhoid, amoebic dysentery...I don't think even the most rugged, well-prepared survivalist would last very long.

~VOW
Isn't this true without sea level rise ...

Last edited by watchwolf49; 03-24-2017 at 08:55 PM.
  #49  
Old 03-26-2017, 03:38 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 21,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Doggerland isn't a name from memory ... it's a modern term used to describe the lands currently under the North Sea
I didn't say the name was gone from memory, I said the place itself was gone from memory.

And no, it doesn't refer to all the lands currently under the North Sea, it refers to that portion that was finally inundated 6 millennia before Rome even existed. And that portion wasn't attached to the Netherlands when it was finally covered, it was already an archipelago by then.

If a Dutch polder were to get flooded today, nobody would say "Well, that's the last gasp for Doggerland!" (except, seemingly, yourself: )
Quote:
... as late as 1953 the North Sea claimed a fair chunk of Holland forcing the evacuation of 70,000 people ... it's an on-going process recorded as early as the 3rd Century AD ...

Last edited by MrDibble; 03-26-2017 at 03:41 AM.
  #50  
Old 03-26-2017, 08:02 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 7,921
I also call both continents America ... not just one of the countries ...

Last edited by watchwolf49; 03-26-2017 at 08:03 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017