Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

jjoshjl

New Orleans

50 posts in this topic

JUST THROWING THIS OUT THERE...

I am by no means an expert at this stuff so, take it at that...

So, i am seeing these pictures of NO pretty much becoming part of Lake Pontchartrain, so if this is turning into a true Nightmare scenario, (and taking into the fact they jsut ordered complete evacuation of NO... Never in my life have I heard that for ANY city,, even emptying out shelters), do you think itpossible that NO or atleast pars of NO could simply be abandonded and left to Mothernature...

Dont get me wrong I would hate it if that happened, and I am sure it is over blowing the situation, but one cant help but wonder when you look at the pictures of the Superdoom being an island...

PLEASE.. Correct me if I am wrong...

Just was curious if I was the only one to think this...

Josh

PS: DONTATE ANYTHING YOU CAN TO HELP THE RELIEF EFFORT...

They are going to need it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I look at it, in a different type of way. Many American cities, that have suffered from natural diasters, boomed (because of the rebuilding efforts) instead of being abandoned. Growth in South Florida has shot up, since hurricane Andrew, Chicago went on a skyscraper boom after its great fire, San Fransico rebuilt after its great earthquake and even Jax went through a massive boom, resulting in a large amount of Prairie School structures being built after the fire of 1901. As bad as it is, from looking at history, this tragic event could eventually bring people and investment, back into the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having lived in NO, it is a very grim situation there. NO will however rebound from this. It will definitely take time and untold amounts of money, but the city is one that will bounce back. They are in a bit a of quandry at the current moment however - given one of there pumps is down, they can't pump enough water out to repair it.

I agree with Lakelander - look at Jacksonville - it burned to the ground and it is becoming a thriving city (a bit slower than I would like to see, but hey, it is growing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but you have to think of the aftermath of weeks or even months of water diluting and infiltrating buildings, houses, skyscrapers (lower portion), etc., the psychological effects on the people/population that lived there, and the complete devastation of the NO economy because of the disaster.

Mold, mildew, softening of foundation/wood structures, etc. If NO rebounds, it will NEVER BE THE SAME. People will feel uneasy moving back, and I would imagine many will not want to go back out of fear of another hurricane, or just plain fear of the unexpected. Also, many, many structures will probably have to be condemned and destroyed.

It will take some time for the town to perk back up or return to a semblance of normalcy. But in my opinion, NO will never be the same. It may even reduce in size or if people choose not to return in huge droves, cease to exist as it was!

I also have a huge, dreaded feeling that we will see more and more of these type disasters and other upcoming, unexpected surprises. Pray.

FLORIDA SKYRISE ORDER :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to throw it out there.......New Orleans has suffered from floods like this before, since the 1700s and it still survived. Some buildings will be lost, but at the end of the day the city will probably boom as a result of the billions of money that will be poured into the area to upgrade everything, to lessen the chance of this happening again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Lake. This whole let's abandon the city argument is absurd. First, the city has, even with all its problems, more character and history than Jacksonville, Orlando and Charlotte put together (and better restaurants). Second, it is in a good location for the surrounding industry and has a huge tourist industry. And, third, if they had competent government, the threat of floods would go away. The real problem is NO is that people have been predicting big flooding like this for years (and it has happened before with Betsy in 1965) but nothing has been done to effectively improve the levees. This illustrates the complete incompetence of the local officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading post both in response to here and at the New Orleans UP page, i can thnkfully say that i agree with Lake and River on this one...

Besides, I was jsut curious what everyone else thought...

I dreaded the idea of loosing NO pesonally

Thanks Guys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Yes, but Jacksonville is not below sea level.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The point wasn't elevation... Jacksonville faced a devestating hardship and overcame it, just like New Orleans has in the past and will do so currently - IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but nothing has been done to effectively improve the levees. This illustrates the complete incompetence of the local officials.

actually according to the local N.O. paper, local officials were pushing for just as you suggest, but lack of federal funds (due to money wasted in iraq, bush's tax cuts, etc.) cut the funding for rebuilding the levies starting in 2003 down to practically nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JAX - man, the levee situation has been around for 40+ years, yet you blame GWB for the problem? Get over your hatred, man... not EVERYTHING is his fault.

Whether or not you agree with his policies, blaming anything to do with Hurricane Katrina on ANY presidential administration, frankly, is just a load of crap.

Why didn't Clinton do something about the levees?

Why didn't Bush the elder do something about the Levees?

How about Reagan?

Carter?

Ford?

Nixon?

Johnson?

Kennedy?

Come on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually according to the local N.O. paper, local officials were pushing for just as you suggest, but lack of federal funds (due to money wasted in iraq, bush's tax cuts, etc.) cut the funding for rebuilding the levies starting in 2003 down to practically nothing.

Why should the feds pay for levees? No one has adequately explained this to me. I am sorry it happened, but you certainly cant lay this one on Bush. That is absurd. Good response by Derrick, by the way. I am personally blaming Jimmy Carter for all of this. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand, the Feds are the ones that constructed the Levees in the first place and were responsible for them, which is very similar to the Everglades situation in South Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Army Corp of Engineers is responsible for the levees, they are the ones who constrcuted them and they are the ones to maintain and reapir them. The coast guard was asked what they are doing to help repair the levee situation and their reply was, nothing, that is out of our jurisdiction, that is the Army Corp of Engineers.

The whole "bowl theory" has been around for years, and in fact every hurricane season there is some sort of documentary telling the same total devestation story. If it is any administrations responsibilty it should start at the local level. Each new Mayor is obviously aware of the problem, but does nothing to make sure that the "bowl theory" remains just that.... a theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should the feds pay for levees?  No one has adequately explained this to me.  I am sorry it happened, but you certainly cant lay this one on Bush.  That is absurd.  Good response by Derrick, by the way.  I am personally blaming Jimmy Carter for all of this.  :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. BTW, I 2nd my vote for Carter, Riverside. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Interesting piece of information...

Prior to Galveston being stuck by a major hurricane earlier in the 20th century, Houston and Galveston were the same size. Currently, Baton Rouge's population is exploding. Corporations that were in New Orleans are now buying up houses and apts. in Baton Rogue to house their employees as they relocate. Baton Rouge is now the largest city in Louisiana and may just stay that way.

Just my two cents

A2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1900, although growing, Galveston was still smaller than Houston. Given Galveston's limited land area and Houston's position (regarding the future oil boom) its very likely that Houston would have still boomed to be the city that it is today, regardless of whether Galveston was hit by a hurricane or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should the feds pay for levees?  No one has adequately explained this to me. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because this is the mission of the US Army Corp. of Engineers.

Build and sustain critical infrastructure facilities for military global missions, nation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In 1900, although growing, Galveston was still smaller than Houston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess to really figure it out, we would have to go back and see which city (Houston or Galveston) was founded first and which one had the higher grow rate, at the time. Because there's a chance that Houston was probably starting to pull off anyway.

As far as New Orleans goes, I think its too early to declare its downfall. Because of it being the home of the nation's largest port, the oil industry, and the tourism factor, several home grown companies will be back and they'll need employees to keep their businesses going and they have to live some where. Given the history of natural diasters in this country, once the federal government invests billions in infrastructure (Bush has already promised to rebuild), New Orleans will most likely boom and become a better place than it was before the storm hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess to really figure it out, we would have to go back and see which city (Houston or Galveston) was founded first and which one had the higher grow rate, at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its still too early to declare that most of the buildings will have to be destroyed. The storm only occured 5 days ago. This city has been flooded several times before, up to several weeks and all of these wood structures survived. They also have a significant amount of masonry buildings and most of the popular historical areas (Garden District, downtown & French Quarter are on dry ground and have been reported to still be in good shape. Nobody expects redevelopment to occur overnight. But it will eventually happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its still too early to declare that most of the buildings will have to be destroyed.  The storm only occured 5 days ago.  This city has been flooded several times before, up to several weeks and all of these wood structures survived.  They also have a significant amount of masonry buildings and a large percentage of the popular historical areas (Garden District, downtown & French Quarter are on dry ground and still in good shape.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not suggesting destroy the towers and the CBD, but I can assure you that ALL of the wood framed houses will be a complete loss. The Hotels will be a great investment for the city as they can still house tourists for the Historic Districs which, thanks be to God, were spared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.