I mean in general, not just with regard to the current situation. The city is sinking, global sea levels are rising, shit’s getting real. Can anything be done – for example, somehow artificially raising it a couple of meters or something?
No.
Double post
There’s the MOSE flood barrier, if it ever gets built:
That’s still a helluva lot more efficient than Boston’s Big Dig (originally estimated to cost $2.6 billion, final cost over $24 billion).
I’m not an engineer, but it looks like it would be feasible to block off the Venetian Lagoon. Much of the Netherlands is below sea level, and protected by dikes, dams, and floodgates.
Moderator Note
Such a response is entirely unhelpful in GQ. If you’re not willing to provide a reason for your answer, don’t bother posting at all.
Colibri
General Questions Moderatot
It is possible, by blocking off the entire lagoon like Walken said and pumping water out to lower it, like in the Netherlands. But that would cause even more ecosystem damage than MOSE is already likely to.
MOSE by itself won’t save Venice, only lessen the flooding.
There’s also the possibility of raising the subsiding foundations by jacking up individual buildings and pumping something under them. But that’s mega-engineering orders of magnitude beyond MOSE.
There is an argument that Venice has already been lost as a viable city, anyway. It’s essentially just a tourist attraction these days.
Q: Can Venice be saved?
A: How much money do you have on you?
There are staggering costs involved in really doing anything significant.
An alternate solution: making the flooding the attraction. Build up permanent raised walkways for the tourists. Have the tour guides go “Hey, you’re walking 3 feet above what used to be the old sidewalk level just 50 years ago. Isn’t that great?”
It’d be like Pompeii only recent water and not old ash.
I saw something years ago about injecting fluids into porous sediments. I have no way of evaluating the cost or efficacy.
Over half of New Orleans is below sea level. (1-2 feet below)
So huge levies all around Venice and pumps to keep the water level from getting too deep (so canals still but the buildings would still be usable). If the USA could do it in New Orleans early in last century, Europeans can do it now.
Also, New Orleans periodically will face hurricanes that put extreme stress on the pumps and levy structure. Does Venice face any sort of comparable extreme weather?
This was done in Long Beach - They clawed back around a foot … from *30 ft *of subsidence. That’s not going to make enough of a difference to Venice even if the geology is right for it.
Capability is not the issue. Funding is. Esp. since the lagoon with all it’s arms and inlets is a busy shipping channel.
The long term answer is ‘no’. Just like me city of Charleston, SC the downtown is doomed barring truly Herculean engineering efforts that are not worth it in the long run.
We’ve made our decisions and we’ll have to live with our losses. There’s not a lot to be done other than to move and abandon the things that are lost. I know - we all know here - that the battery and shopping district downtown is going away. You can already see it in how builders are moving inland for commercial and industrial development instead of moving up and down the coast as they have before. Residential builders, of course, continue to sell beachfront property to suckers. That’s going to continue until NFIP finally stops issuing flood insurance on the Carolina coast.
Sorry for the snarkiness. What I should have said is, Venice was a lost cause before global warming began causing catastrophic weather events. It was already subsiding to the point that flooding had become a regular feature.
Post ice-cap melt, all low-lying coastal cities are going to become unviable, and sadly Venice is going to one of them.
I was saddened to see such beautiful buildings flooded. Venice is a great city, and I’ll never forget it.
The Mose barrier is said to be able to keep out 3m tides. If it gets built. There are concerns it might hurt the water flow and local ecosystem. But it’s hard to see much alternative.
Realistically, Venice has far too many tourists and greed should not be allowed to trump local concerns for the number of cruise ships and viability. Parts of the city are very low and are going to flood, in all likelihood, regardless of barriers if world water levels continue to rise.
But this isn’t the first such event. Venice flooded 50 years ago. The icebergs and Goobal weather patterns have shown the truth of climate change for some time.
See my post in the other Venice thread about the several other floods since 1923. They are becoming more and more common. This is only a 50 year event in the sense of maximum severity. There have been many nearly as bad ones in between.
Virtually all coastal cities are lost causes. They will necessarily move inland and uphill as sea levels rise. Netherlands are a counter-case because national existence is at stake. But Venice and other quaint sumps can (and will) be evacuated and abandoned. They won’t be history’s first lost cities.