dr_hunt Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 What I'm hearing is that it's going to take 6 months or longer to remove the water. They had to pump 24 hours a day to keep it dry anyway. Parts of town are 32 feet below sea level. In this time frame all buildings and foundations and roadway beds will be lost, so we are looking at complete reconstruction only to have the possibility that this may occur again as soon as it's done. I'm not a betting man, but IMHO not going to invest in something that is that risky. So, what is the real possibility for rebuilding New Orleans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b__sosick Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 it'll never be the same, that's for sure. But nothing is impossible with good teamwork, wit, and a LOT of money. read; A LOT OF MONEY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 How dare you think logically dr hunt! Don't you know we need to ignore the reality of the situation in order to stay PC? You want to be PC don't you? Don't want to end up like Hastert... On the other hand, if the Japanese can BUILD AN ISLAND to put an airport on maybe the solution is to raise the level of the city then rebuild it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudypoochris Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 i think the really scary thing about it all is that we complain so much about terrorists but when you really think about it anyone could of put a couple of bombs on the levy and that would of been that... But yah definatly need to put the city above sea level kinda nuts to keep it down like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil1934 Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 There's a number of factors here. They've been asking for $1.5B for years to rebuild the delta as it would buffer the incoming waves but Congress doesn't want to spend that kind of money just to build swampland. All the levees upstream mean the Mississippi isn't depositing silt like it used to and storms are removing what was there. Federal flood insurance requires you raise the elevation of a structure after making a major claim. I think the best plan would be to move the town north of the lake and put it in Slidell. It's only going to come back half as strong with corporate and personal bankruptcies driving people elsewhere. And building loans and insurance will be tough if they stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 73TPIZ Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 What's ironic is that a top General with the Army Corps of Engineers said in an interview that the money they've been asking for levy repair/reinforcement was to rebuild another part of the levy. The part that broke was thought to be fine and they wouldn't have touched it with the money. That's pretty scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim240z Posted September 3, 2005 Share Posted September 3, 2005 Chicago, San Francisco, and others were all rebuilt after fires/earthquakes etc when no-one thought it possible......N.O. will be rebuilt, but why someone would want to live below sea level is beyond me....be it the Gulf Coast or Netherlands........or wherever. Then again, I guess the same can be said for living over a major tectonic fault system.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(goldfish) Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Of course we can. But why?? Like this will never happen agian. Why must people insist on that type of stuff. There is a good reason why fed. insurance would require you to raise your stuff if it gets flooded. silly people, just move the city now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
datsunlover Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Not meaning to offend people here, but I say LEAVE IT BE! Forget it.. clean up anything hazerdous (fuel, dead bodys, ect) and walk away. It is a lost city, and maybe if it's left as a of monument of sorts, people will think about things a little more.. Why in gods name would you even THINK about doing that AGAIN!?!? Not to mention I'm getting raped for gas all the way up here in Ontario, because of this mess!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5foot2 Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Im in maine datsunlover, and fuel prices are rising quickly. the killer is a lot of our fuel I'm told comes from north of the border in CA, not from the south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wigenOut-S30 Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Not meaning to offend people here, but I say LEAVE IT BE! Forget it.. clean up anything hazerdous (fuel, dead bodys, ect) and walk away. It is a lost city, and maybe if it's left as a of monument of sorts, people will think about things a little more.. Why in gods name would you even THINK about doing that AGAIN!?!? Not to mention I'm getting raped for gas all the way up here in Ontario, because of this mess!! wow,this seems like a very selfish post.. You realize thousands and thousands of people are with out there homes and thousands are most likely dead. All you can think about are your gas prices.. I am sorry but that is a very selfish attitude. I live in Mobile with friends from NO and family in MS. and yes.. that post offended me. I am not saying you are not intitled to your openion. but you might want to think about what you are going to post before you post next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VRJoe Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 My personal feeling is that since the building will have to be torn down, why not raise the city. Heck they could build a canal system at the same time that would make it a bigger tourist attraction. I know it will get rebuilt, I just hope they make changes to make it safer form another Cat-5. My heart goes out to everyone out there, it's going to create a building boom once it gets cleaned up. - Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_hunt Posted September 4, 2005 Author Share Posted September 4, 2005 Well, I was just checking pulse here and trying to see what the general consensus was. I'm for leaving it alone and moving elsewhere, for the main reason that it will happen again, it's just a matter of time and "odds". Any time your lower than sea level, it's going to happen and if you don't change your thinking, it'll happen to you more than once. I don't really relish the thought of all those tax dollars that we don't have being spent on something that is a lost cause from a practical standpoint. I'd check with the dead folks, but they aren't talking much. I bet they wished they were living somewhere else at the time this happened. I'd check with the survivors but the folks in TV land have already interviewed so many and they are all wishing they were somewhere else also. I don't think one can compare So Cal with this, it is apples and oranges. You know there is going to be earthquakes in Ca, but when, where and how bad. In N.O. you know that it is 32 feet below sea level and it's going to have a catastrophic flood that is going to wipe out the entire city. In fact I was watching a program on the history channel three weeks ago, I think anyway, that was describing just what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks280zt Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Well my dad owns and environmental service company, has vac trucks, tankers, spill recovery teams, etc, and he was just contracted to come down and help clean this mess up. When I asked how much they were getting paid "anything as long as it gets done." He was literally told to name his price, just get some men and trucks down there and get on it. If they are going to use that attitude on the clean up, they might have the same "just do it no matter the cost" plan later on for reconstruction. Bottom line is there is going to be loads of money spent to clean up and rebuild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I don't think anyone doubts it can be rebuilt. But have to question the why part. As Einstien said, attempting the impossible is not insane. Insanity is attempting the same thing over and over again and expecting it to turn out differently each time. They say we are in a 20 to 40 year cycle of increased hurricane activity. Add to that the possibilty that global warming is impacting the hurricanes activity and that the oil and gas extraction is causing the city to sink, and you really have to ask why. I say if it is too expensive to bring in that much fill dirt, then bring in Greenpeace and let them restore the wetlands. But, we all know what is going to happen. Oh, BTW, that Japanese island airport is an amazing piece of engineering. They actually built the entire terminal on a set of hydraulic jacks that they can use to level the building as the island "sinks". Trouble is, the island is sinking faster than they thought it would. As the song goes, history proves again and again how nature points out the folly of man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 Oh, BTW, that Japanese island airport is an amazing piece of engineering. They actually built the entire terminal on a set of hydraulic jacks that they can use to level the building as the island "sinks". Trouble is, the island is sinking faster than they thought it would. Someone pointed out that same thing on another board. It's true, it is sinking faster than expected. I would think we pretty much know what to expect in New Orleans, and the point was more that they can get some of the dredgers in there and actually pull up enough dirt to fill the bowl in a fairly efficient way. I'm all for moving the city myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strotter Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 "Don't live there because it's dangerous" doesn't really make sense. By that logic, nobody should live: On the western seaboard (tectonic activity), In the midwest (tornado activity), In the northeast (extreme cold weather), On the eastern seaboard (hurricane activity), Downstream of a dam (they burst), Near any river (they flood), In a desert (it gets hot and power fails), In a poor neighborhood (people shoot each other). I can't think of anywhere that's immune to disaster of some kind. No matter where you live, eventually something predictable and bad will happen to you and somewhere else there'll be some idiot watching his TV, scratching his belly and saying "Well, they should've know it'd happen..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 "Don't live there because it's dangerous" is a bit silly. You're right. Every place is "dangerous" to some extent. But ignoring the risks is pretty stupid too. Like everything in life, where you choose to live is an assumed risk. I don't know about you but I checked to see if my house was in a flood plain before I bought it. Maybe that doesn't make sense to you, but it sure made sense to me. There's a development in Santa Maria, CA that makes me cringe every time I drive by it. It is IN A RIVERBED. Not kidding. IN A RIVERBED. And there is a levy around this development about 10 feet high. The riverbed is pretty big, I'll grant you and the river is normally very small. Still an amazingly stupid place to build houses, and I'd never buy one. You say "eventually something predictable and bad will happen to you". You can figure out how PROBABLE it is that something bad will happen as well, and it's a pretty good idea to do so. How likely is it that a tornado hits YOUR house? Not very likely. Extreme cold and heat can be dealt with pretty efficiently for the most part with the occassional ice storm screwing things up. Earthquakes are a big problem, but you can buy a house that isn't 90 years old that is built to stand up to them. Risk mitigated. Poor neighborhood is a problem that's tougher to deal with, since the fact that you're living in a poor neighborhood probably dictates that it will be hard to leave. Downstream of a dam is one that I would try to avoid at all costs. Right next to a river. Yeah, I probably wouldn't buy there either. The risks of hurricanes could be lessened by the structure you live in, but most importantly where you live. Once again, New Orleans is like a worst case scenario flood plain. Everyone knew it, and 3/4 of the city was able to evacuate accordingly when the storm came. It was mostly the poor people who couldn't manage to get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudypoochris Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I think if you took 100 americans, 2 from each state, and asked them what the plan for rebuilding new orleans is, most would say move it. I thinkt hats what the consensus would be, for the greater good it seems to make sense that the city be rebuilt soemwhere close by that isnt under sea level. I understand how people don't want to move because it is "their home" and that is a valid point but i think if you were to ask these same people in 10 years they will probably be quite happy that their home isn't where it used to be. Also it will make one hell of a monument. Hope that wasn't offensive to anyone, and i am sorry for everyone who suffered. But before peoples emotions overide their smart decision making process, maybe people should step back and weigh the gains vs benefits. Also the everywhere is dangerous thing isn't really a good example, no offense, because it does not take into account the severity/probability of the danger. As in if you live in florida you can count on a yearly tornado pretty much, but if you live in california count on a big earthquake every 20 or so years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaparral2f Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 Why rebuild it you ask? BECAUSE IT'S NEW ORLEANS! Sometimes there needs to be more considered than just dollars. I mean this isn't some third rate subdivision we're talking about here, it is the city that gave us jazz, and sent the Blues up the river to Chicago. New Orleans has been there since the revolution fer chrissakes. This is a city that has a soul and feel that is all its own. Tearing it down and moving it would IMHO be on a par with building a housing development on the Gettysburg battle field. I've managed to go to aomost every major city in every state in the lower 48, and beleive me, there ain't no place like the big easy. Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts