# Would skyscrapers survive rising sea levels? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 17, 2017, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423 "2017-03-17T17:24:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2017, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/41 "2017-03-21T17:10:45Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/42 "2017-03-22T13:27:39Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > Nothing in there about [Doggerland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland) whose last [remnants](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Doggerbank.jpg) were well north of the low countries and sank thousands of years before the Romans got to that part of the world. > [@MrDibble](#): > > That’s not Doggerland - out by 6 millennia… I was not aware the area between Germany and Doggerland having a different name … ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/43 "2017-03-22T14:48:03Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Spiderman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiderman/32/230_2.png) [@Spiderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiderman)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2017, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/44 "2017-03-22T19:16:14Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > 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. [ul] [li]Fire/alarm floor was enter the fire tower. [/li][li]Above/below floors were stand by the fire tower.[/li][li]Other floors were keep calm, but otherwise do nothing “while we investigate this emergency”.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2017, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/45 "2017-03-23T19:54:13Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2017, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/46 "2017-03-24T01:02:15Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![VOW](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/vow/32/3043_2.png) [@VOW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VOW)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/47 "2017-03-25T00:29:12Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2017, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/48 "2017-03-25T00:55:29Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > 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 … > [@VOW](#): > > 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 … ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/49 "2017-03-26T07:38:07Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > 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: ) > [@](#): > > … 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 … ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/50 "2017-03-26T12:02:43Z")
I also call _both_ continents America … not just one of the countries … ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2017, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/51 "2017-03-26T17:15:06Z")
That’s nice, but it’s a complete _non sequitur_ from the fact that you use Doggerland in a completely idiosyncratic way that no archaeologist does. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2017, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/52 "2017-05-13T23:31:01Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > 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. Found it - it’s New Jersey, not Florida (Florida has had to deal with flooding for some time now) > **[The Injustice of Atlantic City’s Floods](https://reports.climatecentral.org/atlantic-city/sea-level-rise/?utm_content=buffera50e4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)** > > New Jersey’s working class are forgotten as federal government funds fixes for wealthier neighbors. > [@](#): > > Two miles east of Arizona Avenue, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is spending tens of millions of dollars building a seawall to reduce storm surge and flooding risks for Atlantic City’s downtown and its towering casinos, five of which have closed in the past four years. A few miles in the other direction, it’s preparing to spend tens of millions more on sand dunes to protect million-dollar oceanfront homes. > > But the federal government has done little to protect the residents of Arizona Avenue, or the millions of other working class and poor Americans who live near bays up and down the East Coast, from a worsening flooding crisis. Seas are rising as pollution from fossil fuel burning, forest losses and farming fuels global warming, melting ice and expanding ocean water. With municipal budgets stretched thin, lower-income neighborhoods built on low-lying land are enduring some of the worst impacts. > [@LSLGuy](#): > > 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. Well, we have idfferent atitudes, then: I consider poor people who can’t afford to either move away or fix their houses to be in a crisis, esp. compared to middle-class and rich neighbours, who can either move away or afford repairs. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2017, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/53 "2017-05-14T00:59:04Z")
Thanks for the research. I believe you have misunderstood my take on the political aspects of this. I have zero patience for the wealthy folks demanding that the taxpayers at large arrange to rebuild their yacht docks at higher elevation at no cost to the yacht owners. If we are to do anything, my belief it needs to be for everyone based on need, not skill at being spoiled, demanding, politically-connected children. In the section you quoted I’m merely saying that right now there’s no political will here to do anything other than jaw a bit. The risk is considered too far in the future for the famously short-term get-rich-quick mentality here in Florida. I predict that they’ll only wake up long after it’s too late to do anything really useful or cost effective. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2017, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/54 "2017-05-15T15:39:00Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > [and they don’t even have a million tons of building sitting on them."]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.](This is what 100 year old wood and concrete piers look like (Hoboken) [/URL) > > 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. What about foundation undermining and fatigue from wave action and tidal forces? ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2017, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/55 "2017-05-15T15:51:02Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > I believe you have misunderstood my take on the political aspects of this. I have zero patience for the wealthy folks demanding that the taxpayers at large arrange to rebuild their yacht docks at higher elevation at no cost to the yacht owners. > > If we are to do anything, my belief it needs to be for everyone based on need, not skill at being spoiled, demanding, politically-connected children. > > In the section you quoted I’m merely saying that right now there’s no political will here to do anything other than jaw a bit. The risk is considered too far in the future for the famously short-term get-rich-quick mentality here in Florida. > > I predict that they’ll only wake up long after it’s too late to do anything really useful or cost effective. Sorry for misunderstanding you. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2018, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/56 "2018-02-10T20:11:36Z")
So isn’t the footing not even the weak point? The first floor (and above), there’s just window glass around the outside and lots of leaks, so it’ll flood. Once it floods, all that sheet rock will rot off. And behind the drywall and located throughout each floor of a skyscraper are the load bearing steel columns that hold the whole thing up. Different designs put the columns in different places - the WTC used columns around the outside and in the core - but regardless, I don’t see how these columns are going to be all that well protected. Especially the ones that are supposed to be inside a dry wall. It’ll just be exposed iron, very vulnerable to rust. With this said, it doesn’t sound impossible to deal with. Couldn’t you clear out the lower floors, move the electric junctions higher, and paint the columns with something? Then use sacrificial electrodes and an active cathodic protection system? If the flooding were over decades it seems like you ought to be able to do something like that. Other ideas include building a levy, but to reduce structural stress on the levy, flood the lower area with fresh or distilled water. Much easier to keep the buildings intact if it isn’t saltwater. You’d then need to replace or move all the streets higher, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/57 "2018-02-13T17:15:32Z")
Eh, don’t worry about it. If it gets too bad in Manhattan we’ll just wall it up and send all our criminals over there and let them fend for themselves. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/58 "2018-02-13T19:18:25Z")
The main advantage of Venice was that it was a refuge after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Lagoon was treacherous and too shallow for decent-sized boats, so any invaders were sitting ducks coming across is small boats; a favorite trick was to yank up all the channel markers when invasion was imminent to foil the invaders. Then, as a city that did not have to build expensive defensive walls, and had access to the sea, they became a big sea-trading nation. That protection lasted until the day Napoleon showed up at the shore with new technology, canons that could reach the three miles across the lagoon. They surrendered without a fight. The city was built from the start to live on a lagoon with occasional flooding; “Venice is sinking” was because industrial Mestre on the mainland started pumping out large quantities of groundwater, thus causing subsidence in the bedrock under Venice. Once the cause was determined and the problem stopped, Venice has sunk somewhat but has stopped sinking. They still get flooded every so often, typically in seasonal high tides. AFAIK global warming and rising sea levels are not yet part of the equation. Being in a river-fed lagoon on the far end of a giant Bay (the Adriatic) on an inland sea with low tides to begin with, Venice was not adapted for immersion - it was built on land reclaimed from the lagoon. (And on pilings of logs pounded into the mud over the centuries). It is convenient that the construction materials are not that badly affected by now-regular immersion. Yes, there are some ground floors of old palazzos that flood often enough they are simply left as “wet cellars”. The point is - Venice is not a city that “became” flooded. It was built as islands with no provision for future higher water levels. As the discussion has pointed out, New York is a complex city where a lot of the infrastructure (pretty much all of it) would require significant alteration or replacement. When the only advantage of “Manhattan” becomes that the shell of the building is already there, then it’s unlikely to be useful. Too much else in a complex modern city would have to be completely replaced. Electrical and communication, water, sewer, transportation and access from the mainland… you name it. Even worse - Manhattan is not flat. Beyond Wall Street, you are quite a distance above the water level. There’s a lot of downhill (or uphill) What would be first-floor flooding in Times Square would be several stories in the further downtown or along the shores. At that point, why bother? A 10-storey building half submerged is less likely to survive. If we’re just talking the Wall Street area - then it’s simpler to abandon the area than to try and reclaim it… but then so much of the infrastructure is interdependent; The subways around Times Square are useless if every direction from there ends in a flooded tunnel. And so on… ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2018, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423/59 "2018-02-13T19:26:24Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > What about foundation undermining and fatigue from wave action and tidal forces? It’s certainly not great for skyscrapers. Keep in mind that a skyscraper is designed to stand more or less on its own for 500 to 1000 years. Maybe soaking the foundation in the Hudson River halves or quarters that time. “Not falling down” doesn’t mean “livable” though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-skyscrapers-survive-rising-sea-levels/782423.md?page=2)