Should New Orleans be rebuilt?

[AdoptableDomains]

There's a lot of debate about whether New Orleans should be rebuilt where it is. What's your opinion?

I personally think it would be irresponsible to rebuild it as is. I do think it should and will be rebuilt. However, it should either moved to a different above sea level area, filled in to be above sea level, or built like Venice, Italy to be such that all occupancy is well above sea level and more in tune with natural water levels. Before 9-11-01, I would not have thought this, but even levees built strong enough for a Category 5 hurricane seem a terrorist risk to me, or could be at risk from tsunamis, earthquakes or unusual Mississippi flooding. This type flooding could be recreated again, and be yet another drain on the US and World economies and infrastructure.

 

[Humdizzy]

I think it would be hard to make everyone move their homes somewhere else. Thats like making porn sites give up their .com or other tld and move to .xxx.

 

[Mark]

I think it would be hard to make everyone move their homes somewhere else. Thats like making porn sites give up their .com or other tld and move to .xxx.

The majority of the homes will be condemned anyway .... Between water damage and mold , they wont be fixable ....

It's kind of hard to say - Fema/COE has moved a lot of homes along the Miss. River in the past - But this is a large area affected. Being in the Land Surveying profession for years , I've worked with Flood Zones and Flood Plains a lot. I'd be interested to know if any of these Areas were allowed to even have Federal Flood Insurance. I know most of our ocean front here in NC is not allowed to have it since Hurricane Fran etc ....

 

[Brian]

Personally, I think it should be rebuilt exactly where it is. Its been there for a heck of a long time, and I hope it will be there for a heck of a long time to come. I've been there before, a great place to be. What has happened is terrible, but you have to rebuild and move on. WE havn't tried to move the whole state of Florida just because it gets hit by huricanes every year and does hundreds of millions worth of damage, we rebuild and we move on.

 

[HHDomains]

Considering 90% of residential buildings will be destroyed by the end of this I don't think it would be very smart to rebuild in the same place.
If we can't learn from the past we are doomed to repeat our mistakes.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

I think it would be hard to make everyone move their homes somewhere else. Thats like making porn sites give up their .com or other tld and move to .xxx.

Moving the porn sites to .xxx would be a whole lot more likely if the site they were currently on was destroyed unoccupiable for an extended time.

This is partly economics. It may be cheaper to buy land elsewhere and trade for the current land, than to clean up the now toxic waste and put people back in expensive to rebuild and insure, harms way.

WE havn't tried to move the whole state of Florida just because it gets hit by huricanes every year and does hundreds of millions worth of damage, we rebuild and we move on.

One of my points is that terrorism could take out even a stronger levee, or the electric that runs the pumps, but they can't recreate a hurricane to destroy Florida. A city surrounded by water and built below sea level is just too vulnerable and completely reliant on pumps continuously working.

 

[movingconcierge]

There is way to much commerce that takes place at the delta of the mississippi to not utilize that land...but anyone ever heard of stilts...?

How about they build the city anew on stilts. I hope they also consider some massive land building too. Kind of like they did in the Bay area. Some parts of San Francisco is entirely manmade (for those of you who didn't know already). The only problem with that is liquifaction.

 

[jeter4982]

I think it should be rebuilt, as this is what people have called home for generations and generations. True, another storm could knock the city out again, but then again a major earthquake could take out a good chunk of California, or a volcano could take out Hawaii, but people still choose to live there. It is their culture, and where they have grown up, and I don't think we should say they can't live there because it is "too dangerous" or "too costly".

Also as movingconcierge said, there is a ton of commerce that takes place on the waters, and even if people didn't move back, you know some corporation would buy out all the land, and use it for commercial purposes.

Tom

 

[ZuraX]

90% or more of the buildings are in ruins. I say knock it all down and fill it up to above sea level then rebuild.

 

[Jeff]

Voted! :tu:

God Bless.
-Jeff

 

[Lyte]

I'd like to see it rebuilt but not unless they fix the levies to handle larger storms and update the pumping system.

 

[GeneCosta]

90% or more of the buildings are in ruins. I say knock it all down and fill it up to above sea level then rebuild.

I agree. You could always leave the remaining portions as they are, since they didn't get ruined for a reason...

 

[Brian]

WE havn't tried to move the whole state of Florida just because it gets hit by huricanes every year and does hundreds of millions worth of damage, we rebuild and we move on.

One of my points is that terrorism could take out even a stronger levee, or the electric that runs the pumps, but they can't recreate a hurricane to destroy Florida. A city surrounded by water and built below sea level is just too vulnerable and completely reliant on pumps continuously working.

If we are that worried about terrorist, just build a huge bubble around the US , so we can keep everyone out. There is potential for terrorism anywhere anytime. I know of cities in Virginia, that are totally rely on dams holding back water. So would you suggest that all places like this just pack up and move because of a potential terrorist threat?

I mean yes, I see where a setting like New Orleans is more vunerarable but, the way the city is laid out, is what makes it what it is. It was a beautiful city, and I hope that it will be once again. It's terrible what has happened, but you have to pick up the peices, and move on. Live for the future, not in the past.

 

[.X.]

I think it will definatly be rebuilt where it was,The french quarters and ect have way to much history for it not to be,You can't control mother nature,You can just rebuild after she runs her course,That would be like moving oklahoma city because of all the tornados...Nah

 

[CrazyTech]

If we are that worried about terrorist, just build a huge bubble around the US , so we can keep everyone out. There is potential for terrorism anywhere anytime. I know of cities in Virginia, that are totally rely on dams holding back water. So would you suggest that all places like this just pack up and move because of a potential terrorist threat?

To play devil's advocate here, doesn't one less hole in security make everything a little bit safer. If it can withstand a terrorist attack targeted at destroying it then shouldn't it be able to withstand a hurricane to an extent?

 

[primacomputer]

Personally I have never understood why people build their homes in harms way. Below sea level, in the shadow of an active volcano, in the middle of tornado alley, etc. But they do, and it's their homes we're talking about so they should be the ones to make the decision. Personally I think it would make the most sense to raise the whole place, or most of it, a few metres above sea level. But if they want to rebuild it as it was that's fine by me.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

But they do, and it's their homes we're talking about so they should be the ones to make the decision.

To the point it only effects them, I agree. However, All US citizens are now bearing the cost of this poor decision (building a major city below sea level) in the rescues, sheltering, recovery, repairs, cleanup, and disruption to the economy. Yes, these things needs to be done now and is the right thing to do, but we need to make sure it cannot happen again.

 

[RJ]

I keep hearing that the city of New Orleans was built in a "bowl" below sea level. That just doesn't sound wise to me. Mother Nature has decided to put water there, but aparently it's going to be pumped out so man can inhabit it again.

San Francisco was mentioned as an example earlier. There is quite a bit of land that was man made and some of what even come into existance as garbage dumps is now some of the most valuable property in the area.

However if you go back hundreds of years, much of what is now the bay used to be dry land. Mother Nature decided to move water into those areas and we now have a beautiful bay there. I can only imagine if this natural landscape change had taken place in modern day would people be petitioning to pump the water back to where it was before?

I've never been to New Orleans and I hope to visit someday. I'm not against them rebuilding it, but I hope when its rebuilt they consider the possibility of a similar hurricane hitting in the exact same way.

RJ

 

[The Equivocate]

San Francisco was mentioned as an example earlier. There is quite a bit of land that was man made and some of what even come into existance as garbage dumps is now some of the most valuable property in the area.

However if you go back hundreds of years, much of what is now the bay used to be dry land. Mother Nature decided to move water into those areas and we now have a beautiful bay there. I can only imagine if this natural landscape change had taken place in modern day would people be petitioning to pump the water back to where it was before?

The land in San Fransisco is mainly debris from the earthquake of 1906, correct? They were talking about this on the news and comparing SF and New Orleans. They could take the debris from the hurricane (removing the wood, but leaving the bricks/steel) and fill in the land and make it higher. Then the problem arises that if SF ever had a huge earthquake, the land would be so unstable that there would be a lot more damage than if it was built on dry land.

Like you said, if you build in a place you're not supposed to be, then something like this is bound to happen, but it doesn't mean relocating the whole city, but after something like this, a LOT of people won't be returning, whether their homes are too devastated to come back to, or they're smart enough to cut their losses and move elsewhere.

 

[monRa]

I think it should be rebuilt as it was, i don't think the city problem was the city, the problem was the they didn't "update" an dwork at the antifloodings metres ;(!