OK, I’ll bite: why is this a bad idea? The important bit economically is the port which is by necessity at sea level, but is there really no above-sea-level ground nearby? Why not build on that, with levees between the city and the water?
I think that the entire area should be evacuated, then nuked in order to flatten out and clean up everything. The president should declare that New Orleans no longer exists, and it will be stricken from all maps and books. A new city or cities may be built in locations that make sense, but none of them will be “Orleans.”
This post entirely not in jest.
It’s not quite the same as building everything on stilts, but after the 1900 Storm, the entire city of Galveston Texas was raised six feet on average by pumping dredgings from Galveston Bay. Galveston was a much smaller city that was already three feet above mean sea level and built on sand which doesn’t compress as easily as the organic soil that New Orleans is built on. Nobody mentions it, but the cost and the decades-long disruption in daily business probably helped run Galveston broke and played a part in the growth of the Port of Houston. Galveston, once the second largest port in the US (IIRC) is now a relatively unimportant shipping terminus.
Both raising the grade and turning New Orleans into a modern day Venice would cost too much and would have to be repeated in a century or so after the ground subsides another few yards. Una is right that it would be a lot cheaper and effective to rebuild the levees, perhaps raising the grade on the land side for a block or two to help brace things. Beyond that, it might help to build a few barrier dikes (levees, whatever…) to take the force of waves rolling off the open Gulf before they hit the final levees. These could be left open to the sea to minimize the erosion of swampland.
No facts or Stats, this is IMHO after all.
I just think New Orleans as it is of great cultural importance to many of us. It is was of the great and fascinating cities in the US. When Frisco collapsed and then burnt they did not abandon the city. Even though another Earthquake would eventually come along and hit it again. I just think New Orleans should be rebuilt. I will admit to there being rational arguments against it. Yours is possibly the basis of one.
VC03 is either a massive Whoosh or very ignorant. I think its a Whoosh
cornflake, this situation in nola really reminds me of galveston. right down to the years of pre-storm warning. although galveston’s water receded quickly like the coastal areas in miss and ala.
some areas that are a total wash could be raised. there will be no buildings in the way. to try and raise existing buildings would be very difficult and very expensive. enhancing the levee system in those areas would be easier and less expensive.
the french quarter is above sea level and the buildings there hopefully can be recovered and repaired. thus far they are not as badly flooded as others. i think that area will be the quickest to recover.
i really can’t see trying to fix houses that have been in standing water to their roofs or completely under for days or possibly weeks. there just isn’t enough bleach in the world to kill all the mold and mildew. new orleans isn’t know for their low humidity. how would you dry them out?
While we won’t be able to assess the full extent of the damage for several weeks, I’d like to interject a thought to those who have emotional or cultural connections to N.O. It will never be the same city as it was a week ago. While I believe we should try to preserve the history that we can, I don’t believe that we should continue to (re)build in an area that is destined to fail.
This is the largest insured loss in the history of our nation. Who do you think will pay for the decision to continue to build a metropolitan area in the middle of wetlands. We all do.
I believe the lesser damaged parts of the city should be preserved but the areas that are completely devastated should be leveled and used as real estate for the new and improved levee or barrier system. Unfortunately, that means that beachfront property would no longer be available to build on just because it’s pretty. The balance of the city could/should be rebuilt on higher ground.
In the FWIW department, I don’t believe anyone should be allowed to build homes/businesses in perilous places such as beachfront, riverfront, or mountainside. Living in the midwest all my life, I’ve been through several floodings of the Mississippi River, only to see determined homeowners rebuilding their home in the same spot flood after flood.
I agree.
Keep the part thats historically significant as is.
EVERYTHING else needs to be rebuilt on higher ground.
Most of the people I see on TV are in/on apartment buildings. Where is the historical significants of that?
It’s going to be expensive, but the city must be rebuilt. At least parts of it. It’s too big of a port and has too much oil machine to move it. Not to mention the historical parts.
I agree with others that this is the perfect oppurtunity to build it back better, using city planning and such.
Goodness, that means that almost all of Florida and California needs to pack it up and move. Savannah, Charleston, Baltimore, NYC, Boston, Portland ME, Denver, Houston you need to pack it up too. Even the Great Lakes cities need to pack it up too since that area can flood. Where do you suggest we all go? To the Midwest as far away from rivers/lakes as we can get? Get ready South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, North Dakota here we come. Make room for our trac/cookie cutter housing, shopping malls and super-laned highways because of course we aren’t gonna build a new place based on mass-transit.
It’s interesting how the last two posters that suggested moving N.O. are from Iowa and Indiana. Have either of you ever even been to N.O.?
Having a degree in geography and urban planning, I can’t even fathom people thinking that N.O. should be moved or abandoned. Cities aren’t always practical and logical entities. They are almost living & breathing places. They each have their identities and personalities. Many like New Orleans, San Francisco and Venice are works of art. They are truly special places and worth preserving. These places say a lot about us as human beings. I believe the world is a much nicer place for these type of cities even if they arose in places that aren’t completely logical. I would hate to live in a world where all cities are built and planned on the Des Moines or Indianapolis model. While these two cities have their place in the world everything shouldn’t be like them. Can you imagine the blandness?
A moot point in Galveston’s case, since almost all of the buildings outside the business district were reduced to lumber.
I agree; this is the chance to rebuild the levees and do it right. The problem is that raising the grade of the entire city and turning pumped-in slurry into compacted soil would take years if not decades (my assumption, I am not a civil engineer) Besides, no one will allow their neighborhood to be left below the grade of the rest of the city without a fight and the city will still continue to subside as it has since it was founded. The pragmatic solution seems to me to be rebuilding the levees, higher, wider and with better soil and materials, then upgrading the pump stations so that they will continue to work through the next hurricane.
Even a theoretical home that was flooded but suffered no other damage would need the drywall/plaster and insulation removed, the framing treated for mold, any plywood/OSB replaced, a reroof, etc., etc. before it would be habitable, much less attractive. I suspect that almost every working class and better home that isn’t a historical building will be rebuilt. Poorer peoples homes will be repaired as well as is required by the building department and as federal funds allow.
Personally, I see this as a great opportunity for volunteer work. As chronically understaffed as they are, Habitat for Humanity has been looking for a new mission; here is a good one. Given the chance, I will be volunteering at least a few weekends over the next year or two.
On the larger question of New Orleans’ future, I think that we’re already seeing the future trends. Shippers, deprived of the port, are finding alternate ways of getting their products to market. New Orleans is too important as a seaport to go away but will become less important in the years to come, much as what happened to Galveston a century ago.
Sorry for the late reply. Work is going to keep me busy through the week. I’ll drop in as I can.
Ya know what?
I’m not an expert by any means but even I know you can keep the sea port without building apartment houses below the damned water level.
I would like to say your viewpoint is valid. I would like to have this remain an exchange of ideas. In that mode…
Exploring other ideas that are not my favorite:
Several people have noted New Orleans continues to sink.
Apartments need to be built to support the seaport, so if we don’t raise New Orleans:
- Where is the high ground to build?
- Can we build a solid mass transit system from the housing zone to the Sea Port and tourist zone? {Many of the people who did not leave, did not leave because they have no car and not enough mass transit}
- What parts of the old city can be retained?
- The French Quarter and Metarie are above sea level, any other areas?
The reality of the rebuilding will hinge on, IMHO, on “what is the cheapest?” New Orleans is a poor city, even with tourist dollars. Louisianna is a poor state.
The reclaimation, no matter what path it takes, will be astronomical. I know the Feds will bear the major portion, but, its still needs to be within the limits of reality.
Of course, if the Japanese can build an island for their airport
Ok, here’s my idea, no more absurd than some others… Just drain Lake Pontchartrain. Ok, well, I guess Lakes Borgne and Maurepas, even Salvador would have to go too. Just scrape all the high points in the state into the lakes, after, redirecting their inflows, of course. Oh right, Pontchartrain isn’t really a lake, but an arm of the Gulf of Mexico. I guess, filling in the Gulf is out of the question… Never mind
I have a related question. Why now, why this time?
N.O. has been hit, and sideswiped many times. Even Camile, in 1969, came as close as this one, and she was a Cat. 5. So why so much more destruction now?
The causeway is all but gone. It made it through at least three others. And the levees, they were there for many others over the last several decades.
Is it just the fact that each storm has taken a bit of a toll, but nothing was repaired properly? Did this storm have something unique?
should have known there would be more than one flake. lol.
the pictures that make me think of galveston are the ones from gulfpoint and pass christian. blocks and blocks of broken houses. this time in living colour.
galveston like new orleans was warned that they would go under. they voted down spending the money for a seawall. now they are maintaining and adding to the seawall that was too expensive.
like the decisions many of us make daily in our own homes, towns and cities put off something that should be done “just in case” to do something that is an emergency now.
new orleans has a chance now to rebuild, restore and shore up. the money will be there for them some how. i hope it will be done properly and done to last years and be able to be maintained.
i agree with the habitat for humanity idea. i have been thinking of something along the lines of… help the refugees in the shelters, help rebuild the city, earn a house. and perhaps something along the lines of the old c.c.c. camps to clear and clean the city and rebuild.
still don’t think there is enough bleach to clean some of the buildings.
[QUOTE=jrfranchi]
I would like to say your viewpoint is valid. I would like to have this remain an exchange of ideas. In that mode…
All my life I have heard that we just have to stop being so careless with our valuable Iowa topsoil.
Erosion is so bad that the gulf of Mexico is filling up. So OK there is your material.
How to get it to the city? Its called a dredge.
Here in Iowa the Corps of Engineers regularly dredge the channel in the Mississippi.The material dredged up is blown on shore.
That Dredge can literally strip the bark off trees. It has that much force. I’m told that anv vehicle in the way is made completely unusable in a matter of seconds.We’re talking about crawler tractors here.
Thats where you get your material and how you move your material.
Sorry no scraping off the high points in Louisiana.
Galveston, despite its best efforts, is no longer the second largest port in the U.S. The industries that drove its importance decided to pick up and move elsewhere. Whether this occurs to New Orleans will be the determining factor in whether it remains an important city, or merely a historical one.
The amount of money required from government in order to rebuild will be dwarfed by the amount of money required from the commercial/industrial base. Should they choose to vote with their feet, New Orleans will never recover. It will simply turn into the world’s largest tourist trap.
I’m hearing on the news now that due to the pollution, it could be years before NO is habitable. If that’s true, and people really have to find new homes & jobs for a matter of years, will they bother to move back?
Too soon for this judgement. But again it may be a valid argument.
Oddly enough if the contamination is that severe, the answer may be the more expensive one. Fill the city to a new higher level to protect and bury the pollution.
It won’t take that long. Gasoline will evaporate or soak into the ground. Human feces will fertilize the grass. It will take less time for the soil to recover than it took for Cannery Row to stop smelling like fish.