Rebuilding New Orleans

In My Humble Opinion
1

So many New Orleans/Katrina threads. Not sure which one is appropriate. So I’ll ask here.

New Orleans will be rebuilt. No doubt about it, no debate. It’s going to happen. But I wonder how much should be rebuilt? Take the 9th Ward. From maps I saw yesterday on CNN, it looked as if the 9th Ward got the dirty end og the stick compared to the more affluent neighbourhood on the other side of the canal. The talking head (Wolf Blitzer, I think it was – or maybe the guy who was with him) said that the people on the other side of the canal were the merchants and business owners, and since they suffered relatively little damage they would be the engines that would get The Crescent City back on its feet. So it’s safe to assume they’ll be coming back.

But what about the 9th Ward? I don’t know how sound structures will be after being submerged in toxic water for a month (or two months, or three months…). My gut feeling is that they’ll be unsalvagable and will have to be demolished. So what happens to those residents, many of whom lived in poverty, if their homes are demolished? Will the city, state and federal governments build low-income housing (‘projects’) there? Given the potential for disaster, should they rebuild there?

New Orleans was built on ‘high ground’. As it grew, the low-lying areas were occupied. Being prone to floods, or the potential for floods, these areas are less desirable places in which to live. Thus, poorer people who could not affor homes on the higher ground lived there. (Note that I am making assumptions that may be incorrect.) Now the low areas are flooded, and I assume that the buildings there must be demolished. What happens next?

Should the low-lying areas that are now flooded be rebuilt? Or should they be left to nature (after being cleared of debris)? What about the poor people? Many of them worked for the merchants I mentioned earlier. How can they get jobs if they have no place to live? But given the scale of the disaster, is it right to let them go back to the same place? Should low-income housing be built in higher areas farther away from the city, and beefed-up public transportation provided so that people can get to work?

I’m not a city planner, nor a social worker, nor have any other expertise in this area. It is morally wrong (in my opinion) to cast the poor adrift, as it were, and leave them homeless. On the other hand if housing is not rebuilt in those areas, including the 9th Ward, that are and will be under water for months, then the human tragedy will be lessened the next time (and there will be a next time) disaster strikes.

And on a related note, how can we (‘we’, as a nation) restore the receding wetlands to the south of New Orleans? I mean that literally: How can it be done? How much would it cost? How soon after rebuildig New Orleans should it be started?

It seems to me that we have a golden opportunity to make The Big Easy safer in the face of hurricanes and overhaul the entire levee system and flood control philosophy. But how do we provide housing for the people without means or insurance who will want to return to their city?

2

That is going to be one of the really hard parts for governements to work out after the water subsides. I agree that the historical and and wealthier parts of New Orleans will be rebuilt. That is, there is no question that the French Quarter and much of Uptown and the Garden District will start to be repaired almost immediately.

However, what about the poor, lowlying parts of the city? We can’t let former residents in there as soon as the water is gone to rebuild even if they have the money. Planners are going to have to come up with an overall plan for the future of the city. OTOH, that land still belongs to people and may be one of their few assetts so things need to happen fast. The government may have to buy most of it until things are decided.

Some people will have mortgages on that land that they will have to default on. What are the banks going to do with that land in limbo?

3

Can you say “Housing Projects” with ‘underground’ parking? This would allow the poor and displaced to live relatively cheap in new housing while also keeping the (contents of the) buildings above the flood height.
This would also allow you to concentrate more people into more housing in the parts of the town that are less prone to flooding. The newer buildings would also be more effective in terms of providing protection against future hurricane winds.
Just an IMHO, of course.

4

Not sure I’m parsing that correctly. Are you suggesting building housing projects with ground-level parking and domiciles above in the low-lying areas (i.e., rebuilding in the same place), or building them on higher ground (i.e., leaving the low-lying areas to nature)?

5

I don’t have an answer to the first question you asked, about rebuilding lower portions of the City. Many of the wood frame houses built at, or very near ground level, will probably have to be condemned and torn down, as they may no longer be structurally sound after having been submerged for a few weeks (estimating it will take weeks to pump all the water out). I think those that can rebuild, will, and those that can’t will try elsewhere. It won’t be a smooth transition, and it will take a while.

As to rebuilding the wetlands, here’s link to an case study about that subject:

http://www.ies.wisc.edu/international/landscape/case_study_Louisiana.htm

I’ve always believed that one of the major reasons Louisiana is losing coastline and barrier islands is the levee system maintained by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. The levee system (usually) protects communities situated along the river from flooding, and (along with constant dredging) keeps the river navigable for commercial traffic. But the levees keep the sediment carried by the river from escaping the confines of the banks and creating new land. The levee system extends all the way out into the Gulf of Mexico and dumps most of the sediment off the continental shelf. Compare maps of the Louisiana coastline from the 1950’s to the present if you want to see how much effect the levee system has had. Chopping the levees down off the coast would begin to reverse the process, but would make it harder on the shipping industry, plus making goods more expensive for everyone.

6

Hasn’t the government given up on the idea of high-rise housing projects? :confused:

7

Many of the flooded homes will be beyond restoring to habitability. This would be true even if the flood waters were relatively clean river water from, say, near Davenport IA and with only a few days of exposure. But this water has a lot of sewage in it, a fair degree of chemical pollution, and many of these houses will be sitting in it for weeks. At a minimum, all carpets, plaster, drywall, plywood, etc. that’s been exposed to flood water would have to be torn out and replaced. But you probably really can’t get all that polluting gunk out of the structural parts of the house, which may well be warped beyond structural soundness anyway. And with the heat and humidity down there – can you get the structure dried out before the building is hopelessly infected with mold and other nasties?

Building living quarters over garages/basements is certainly common in other areas where frequent flooding is expected. It’s usually not done in a very esthetically pleasing way, but it can be; most of San Francisco housing is of this soft first story variety. Of course, in SF first stories are usually not built of flood resistant materials. In any case it would be wise for people to add a few feet to the top of their foundations before reusing them.

There are many instances of differential settling cracking foundations throughout NO as well.

Another possibility is to bring in fill to raise the low lying ground. This would take an awful lot of material, though, and it would have to come from a long way away – the land for many miles away is either occupied or wetlands and bayous.

In any case, I agree that building high rise housing projects would be a very bad idea. But there’s really no reason to do so. There’s no need for to support that kind of density – it will be a while before the population of NO returns to pre Katrina levels, even.

8

Not sure if you are serious or not
Maybe you don’t realize that you can’t build anything “underground” there - for that mater you can’t even bury people underground.

9

A little bit of both. Leave the lowest areas to nature and get the most out of the higher ground by building 8, 12, 16, 24 apartment/condo units. These buildings could be two or three stories tall and be wood frame with brick exteriors.
The buildings could be elevated enough so the first floors would be higher than any future flood levels. Parking could be of the underground type but not really underground since the first floors will be 8-10 feet above ground anyway. The footings will be the only thing underground. You could design the fronts of the buildings to look somewhat normal and the cars enter from the rear and park under the housing.
flickster, every structure of substantial size down there has footings. This wouldn’t really be a radical building redesign.

10

Ar? :confused: Nobody said anything about high-rises.

I had a friend who lived uptown on Freret (near Tulane). He was renting the ‘basement’ of the house. The ‘basement’ was at ground level. It included a front wall, pylons to support the house, and fencing around the perimeter. There were also two enclosed rooms. I don’t remember how high the house was off of the ground, but there were 13 steps up to the front door.

11

Sorry, but that is how I read the following:

And if not I still think it needs to be a given that no such thing should be considered.

12

Why? If the stability of the ground is a consideration then you have to adjust the depth/width of the footings accordingly. Lots of office buildings and larger homes are built on swamp land. An 8 unit housing developement would not be any more of an undertaking than a modestly large home, of which there are many down there.

13

When I say 8 units, I mean an 8 family building.

14

There are a myriad of issues that shoulbe be addressed prior to the rebuilding beginning. Here are a few:

  1. You’ve got to have a process where the population gets a say in the plan. I’ve managed planning efforts for neighbhorhoods much, much, much smaller than New Orleans and they can get quite testy. Doing it on such a grand scale would be both exciting (at least to a planner, like me) and daunting.

  2. Local zoning ordinances are going to have to be seriously amended re: flood-proofing, building in floodplains, etc. That can only come about after #1 above. Some properties that were previously built upon are going to be made unbuildable. That’s going to bring about lawsuits for takings. You may see some condemnation suits if New Orleans decides that some areas need to be cleared and open space preserved for flood control and other public uses.

Get through that process and then we can start hammering nails.

15

So what’s with the Superdome? A little damage on the roof can’t be repaired? I can’t believe they’re going to throw it away.

16

AS I understood it, there seems to be a ‘biohazard’ problem from thousands of people and no plumbing or electricity.

17

As I understand it, the entire goddamn city is a biohazard problem. The flood water is contaminated with sewage and toxic chemicals. Can New Orleans be decontaminated in any effective way, or we just going to tell the poor people to deal with it?

18

Feces and urine can be cleaned, it would have to be more than that.