Haven’t the risk assessment types determined that the only city in the U.S. that’s not vulnerable to natural disasters (hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, blizzards, and temperature extremes) is Denver?
How 'bout let’s all move there :rolleyes: .
You need a better set of maps, moron.
I’m at about 180 feet above sea level, and many miles away from the Chesapeake Bay.
Hurricanes around here, or more properly their remnants, result in downed trees, electrical outages and localized flooding. About the same effects that are produced by a severe thunderstorm.
I like Denver, but it’s a little bit too big for my taste in living.
Global warming is real. While the current spate of killer C5 storms like Andrew and Katrina are indeed caused by a cyclical peak, such cycles will only get worse in the future. The thing is at what point is the return on your effort no longer worth it. Some of us realize that we’re nowhere near that point yet.
As mentioned above, it was a fucking storm. There’s some bad damage, some death, but to abandon such a fine city now would just be unforgivably stupid and cowardly. Those of us who have lived there, even those who have simply visited, view that notion as absurd.
Una’s got it right (yet again), expand the levee system to a level that’ll support disaster protection for another hundred years or so. It’s well worth the cost to protect the existing infrastructure, history, workplace, vacation destination and residences of so many.
Sadly, I really do believe that someday this’ll no longer be an option. Someday the ocean will win. It’s simple physics really and eventually this effort and expense will be too much for even the most stalwart to endure. But we’re not fucking there yet.
Three thumbs up! Excellent rant!
-Joe, excited
Hey Rysad
Here is a link I gave in another stupid thread about this.
This is employment data for New Orleans from the US Department of Labor.
It shows a breakdown of what type of jobs people have and how many have them.
Yes the Leisure and Hospitality area is high. It about equalls the Educational and Health services and is higher than Business and Professional services. But it is nowhere near the number employed in Trade, Transportation and Utilties. New Orleans is not just a ‘tourist’ town.
You talk about jobs being available elsewhere. Where are these jobs? I know some people are looking for jobs, where are they?
Lets say we do just give NO back to the swamp. Can Atlanta take on 150,000 new people tomorrow? Can you think of ten other cities that can? They just happen to have 1000s of empty homes all hooked up to utilties and they have empty schools just waiting for kids and jobs for all.
THAT is why your idea is STUPID. Well maybe your idea is stupid because you are stupid.
I’m at work, so I only have a minute. I’ll expand on this more later if necessary.
To answer the question above…yes, I’ve been to New Orleans, both as a tourist and for work.
Then, regarding Una’s and others’ suggestion regarding increasing the height of the levees–it’s not feasible.
Una is an engineer, and I’m sure that if she thinks about it for a minute, she’ll agree. As a prompt, let me make a couple of points and she can take it from there…
Three Gorges doesn’t apply since the water aound NO is already there. They began diking cities for the Three Gorges before the water rose. Unless there’s an island they decided to spare with huge earthen walls, then the Three Gorges example doesn’t fit.
You can’t change the course of the Mississippi River. You also can’t change the shoreline of Lake P. That’s cheating in an engineering sense.
Cars, and especially trucks, don’t get along well with a 20 degree downslope, so you would either have to build run-ups and run-outs of at least a quarter mile, each, for each road into and out of NO.
If you decide on tunnels through the levee for each road, then you have to have some kind of flood gate for each one. But remember, you’d have to close them all before the water comes creating one large prison–Nothing In/Nothing Out.
The bridges would require flood gates since you can’t just raise the road bed. Again, Nothing In/Nothing Out.
The berm itself would not just be 210 meters wide. This one takes a little thinking, but the actual width of the berm, from the present location to the future edge, when coupled with some reasonable expectations, would be closer to 1/4 mile. If we take Scylla’s estimate of 100 square miles and calculate that as a 10 mile by ten mile square, that extra quarter mile used up by the building of the berm means that approximately 2 1/2 square miles need to be erased–by bulldozing the very real estate nearest the levee that is most desirable. You have to tear down that which you most want to save. Note: This loss of land doesn’t include any more area you want to donate for the run-ups and run-outs if you chose that option.
Just looking at it at face value, the solution for living in a bowl isn’t to build the bowl deeper and with thicker sides thereby eliminating much of the area you want to live in anyway.
So, there being no other viable alternatives offered, it seems that many of you, for purely sentimental reasons, think it’s a good idea to rebuild a city that currently floats in a cess pool while complety denying the facts that condemn the same city to similar future disasters.
That’s just plain dumb.
PS- And to Duffer the Dimwit–
Richfield could get along pretty well if Minneapolis became uninhabitable. It is not entirely, nor even to the greatest extent, dependent upon either Minneapolis or St. Paul for its existence.
It has it’s own water supply. It gets its power from the same place Minneapolis does. It’s property values might just go up as people from Minneapolis look for somewhere else to live. It has its own government, police, sanitation, and infrastructure. In fact, Richfield probably wishes it was further from Minneapolis with Minneapolis becoming what it is.
St. Paul would benefit. Their downtown office occupancy rate is quite high. They’d love the business crossing the river. Richfield could absorb some more business, too. As could the other suburbs.
Note that they would happily continue to exist, and conceivably profit. As would the other suburbs.
You, sir, are a fool. You don’t take the time to reason out your arguments before puking forth your nonsense. I’m done with you unless you make another remark dumb enough to publicly ridicule you further.
One of the first pieces of advice given in the “How to survive a nuclear attack” publications that used to be a staple was to move away from places like D.C., Colorado Springs, and Honolulu. It’s simply common sense that if there is a danger you wish to avoid, you don’t live in a place that is subject to that danger.
I have no opinion on whether New Orleans should be abandoned; that is up to its citizens. If they choose to remain, they’ve got a lot of work to do. The city will be struck by a hurricane again sometime.
You know, it’s threads like these that actually make me fervently wish someone with more than two brain cells to rub together would deliver me a proper smackdown. It would be far less depressing than engaging in the current argument, and I actually might learn something and gain more than a sense of futility for my troubles.
So I express my deepest and sincere gratitude to Una for attempting to elevate the discussion with an intelligent counter-argument. You’ve inspired, in the face of the rest of this “debate”, a sadomasochistic desire to be shouted down and then tackled by the Army Corps. of Engineers. It would be a lot more interesting than what’s going on at present.
Somehow, I don’t think that would happen, though.
Becauuuuuse…
Global climate is warming.
As a result, the sea level is rising.
Meanwhile, quite literally because it’s there, New Orleans is sinking at a rate of about three feet per century.
Storms are worsening (Original cite).
Currently, NOLA is about 80% underwater, and is steeping in a toxic gumbo due to the petrochemical infrastructure all around, bodies popping up from above-ground-graves, and the general sewerage and detritus that sits under any American city. Shit runs downhill, after all.
I’ve made the apparently outrageous observation that simply restoring things to the way they were is asking for a lot of trouble, and that if it was a disaster just waiting to happen before, it most certainly will be again. I’ve also provided some pretty cogent arguments, which is more than this skidmark of a thread deserves, that we probably won’t have to wait too long. That there appears to be no grand plan to improve conditions in and around NOLA to avert such a disaster seems not to impress anyone. I’ve seen no convincing couner-argument to the notion that it is easily one of the most threatened cities on the continent, and will remain so as long as it exists.
Basically I’ve gotten flatulent outbursts about “data points” and entropy, slanderous accusations that I have no caring whatsoever for the plight of those harmed by the effects of the hurricane (the idea that paying to move someone somewhere else instead of back into harm’s way seems to be tantamount to an act of war-like aggression, apparently), and emotional appeals to the effect of “New Orleans is great so you just shut up!”
Fine. If that’s what you got, fuck off, because this wasn’t worth what I’ve already discussed, and sure as Hell isn’t worth any more participation on my part. I’ll argue when it’s worth arguing, but this just sucks pathetic ass. Wanna use me as some straw-man example of callousness in the face of human suffering, go crazy. Given the worthlessness of what informs your oppinion, I can’t conceive of a single good reason why I should give a fuck what you think. I’ll take a few insults to heart if they’re not completely vacuous, but otherwise, it’s like polishing a toilet for fun.
Yeah, but at least we started out 60 feet higher.
I threw Three Gorges out as an example of an engineering challenge which I feel was far greater than protecting New Orleans. Not to say that the same, or similar situation applied. In terms of logistics, earthmoving, construction, cost, and schedule it seems to me that it is feasible.
Well, the course of the Mississippi has been changed and restrained by the Corps several times over history. Now it’s entirely true that these changes are often lambasted for disrupting the natural flow of the river, and for causing further problems downstream. However, there’s essentially nothing downstream of New Orleans, and they could get away with an awful lot in terms of channel alteration.
Lake shorelines are changed all the time, but I’m not sure that the shoreline of the Lake must be altered all the much anyhow - just built up as part of a larger levee system.
Yes, of course. This would of course limit the number of major roads in and out of the city, but once again, it’s not any major challenge. Plus, a 20-meter rise is also something that can be bridged over to some extent.
I wouldn’t recommend tunnels for cars, but I think they would work, with flood gates, for rail traffic. Rail traffic is much more on a schedule, and there are far fewer lines.
Why does it take a quarter mile? You say it takes a little thinking, but I’d rather see the numbers to know how you arrived at that.
But the thing is, sea protection for low-lying or even below sea-level areas is hardly new. The Netherlands have been dealing with this sort of situation for centuries, both in terms of storm protection and land reclaimation.
I’m not throwing my weight around here and saying “oh yeah, they can do this and it’s going to cost X and take Y and result in Z” - all I’m saying is, I’ve seen larger engineering projects, I’ve seen others deal with sea protection on a much larger scale, and that I feel, IMO, that it is very possible to protect New Orleans for some time to come, for perhaps less money than will be lost by this one storm.
To the other Members who have mentioned me - I don’t know what I’ve done to deserve thanks, all I’m saying is that I feel that the potential to save and keep a viable and even thriving and healthy New Orleans is something that, IMO, is certainly doable. I don’t think that one can give up on a city with the history, culture, people, economy, and strategic importance of New Orleans so readily, when I believe that the engineering challenges, while expensive and large (let’s not have any sugar coating of that), are possible. It may end up changing part of the city, and it may end up removing some whole neighbourhoods even - but the overall vast majority of the city can, and should IMO, continue on for some time.
[sub]Venice, on the other hand, is likely screwed. The only thing they’re going to be able to do is build a solid seawall with locks for sea traffic…and I’ll bet they could, too…but that’s for another thread.[/sub]
Where do you people get that idea? It’s just moving north, not under the North American plate.
Well, you’ve given us something to think about, which, relatively speaking, deserves raucous cheers of gratitude.
Now, I happen to think that NOLA, if saved (which it certainly will be) very much ought not to be restored to the way it was. It certainly would be nice to see the most vulnerable parts of the city elevated above sea level, at least, but that would necessarily destroy whatever was underneath. Would the city abide complete destruction of some of these historic properties in order to save the real estate? Is that more cost-effective than moving some of the city to higher ground?
The Netherlands is certainly an interesting example, but do the Dutch ever have to contend with anything on the order of a catagory 4 or 5 hurricane? I know the North Sea has some wicked storms (Flood of '53 comes to mind), but these hurricanes are looking like megaton events for the areas in their direct path. If the Netherlands were on the Gulf Coast, could they survive?
And say some of your suggestions are perfectly viable: Will anyone actually do anything about it? Why was nothing done before, given the inevitability of this disaster? In San Francisco, at least they’ve spent some major capital making buildings earthquake resistant. It really would take The Big One to damage the majority of that city, and when that might happen is quite uncertain. We’ve seen NOLA grazed by a catagory 4 storm this year; and Andrew, which passed by distressingly closely, was a catagory 5 storm. Apparently, NOLA is hit directly by a hurricane roughly every 13.4 years.
Speculation in anticipation of Katrina was that if it remained a cat. 5 and hit directly, NOLA would be destroyed. Not severely damaged, but destroyed. If such a danger posed such an imminent threat, and the problem is soluble, why on Earth did no one try to solve it? Is it doable, or did some monstrous expense provide the justifaction for waiting until Katrina submerged the majority of the city?
Well, first about the hurricanes. So one hits every 13 years. How often does a really big one hit? (oh yeah, hurricanes WILL get bigger and more frequent) If you call that being ‘grazed’ by a hurrican, then you don’t know much about hurricanes. NO was hit hard. No doubt about that.
As to why nothing has been done. Now that is an interesting question. San Fran is a much more wealthy city and coming from a bigger state they probably get more Federal dollars to do that work. So why hasn’t NO? Are they stupid? Do they not have the money? But really the idea that ‘nothing’ has been done to NO to try and prepare is completly false. Things were done that were insufficant. Nobody in favor of rebuildin is saying “Put it back exactly the same and don’t make any new precautions”.
Me no like this place so much anymore.
:dubious:
Katrina did not hit New Orleans directly. If you read the papers, they say things like “New Orleans Spared the full brunt of…” Spared??
Worse. Things that were done exacerbated the erosion problem, two levees broke, and now 4/5 of the city is under very dirty water. I think that’s a step beyond “insufficient”.
Why? Because empty insults in place any attempt at cogent argument inspires derision from the insulted? Because some people hold unpopular views that, nonetheless, have some sense behind them?
[url="http://www.vdem.state.va.us/library/vahurr/va-hurr.htm
[/quote]
Uh huh
[/quote]
. The URL is for Virginia, but Maryland is well within the zone for direct hits by hurricanes as well.
Hm. Messed that up pretty well.
Uh huh. The URL is for Virginia, but Maryland is well within the zone for direct hits by hurricanes as well.
Only needs to happen once.
Incidentally, do you think we should abandon Hawaii, too? The whole place is just one great big volcano, and I expect in what passes for your mind, that the whole state is just another tourist destination. It’s not, like, anyone’s home or anything, or has any sort of industry or economic importance, outside of Lei-manufacture, right? Just like New Orleans. The sparse handful of workers who are employed in manufacturing or shipping can just commute from California! Oh, wait, sorry, any town in California is certain to be wiped out by an earthquake, sooner or later. How about Oregon? No, no, that doesn’t work. Forest fires. Alaska? Nope. Blizzards. Only a matter of time before they get wiped out, too.
Jeez, there really isn’t any place you can live that isn’t going to get flattened by a natural disaster sooner or later, is there? Of course, this doesn’t make any impression on you, because they’re not talking about this on the Magic Picture Box, are they? No, it’s New Orleans that’s captured your ever-so limited attention span, and so we have to suffer your strangled clucking on that subject. Well, thankfully, it’s only a matter of time until, goldfish-like, the idea drops out of your mind entirely and you go back to shitting yourself and wandering in circles.
You shouldn’t use words when you don’t know what they mean. It makes you look stupid. But then, I guess that’s not really a concern for you, is it?
Hey, I got plenty of alternatives, all the of the just as good as yours! For example, we could ask kindly pixies to prevent the city from flooding! Or we could genetically engineer the citizens of New Orleans to be merfolk! Or we could fill in the Gulf of Mexico with unsold copies of E.T. for the Atari 2600! Why, the alternatives are just endless, so long as you entirely ignore reality!
Nah, I’m more than capable of calling you a gibbering, sackless loon while receiving a blow job. Actually, that’s the best idea you’ve had yet. Blowjobs and mocking idiots go together like chocolate and peanut butter!